Piers Morgan Uncensored - "Wake Up Call For Humanity!" Brutal Train Murder Sparks Race & Media Debate

Episode Date: September 10, 2025

Editor’s Note: This panel discussion was recorded earlier today - before the horrific news of the Charlie Kirk shooting. The shocking murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska on a train in North Carolina has triggered justified outrage. Furthermore is the suspicion that legacy media has been slow to cover the story to avoid inflaming racial tensions; a level of caution it seldom applies when the roles are reversed. The response of conservatives has been to point out a double standard, citing nationwide fury over cases like Daniel Penny and George Floyd. Joining Piers Morgan to discuss this is BET News host Marc Lamont-Hill, author and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute Christopher Rufo, host of the Daily Wire’s all-new Isabel Brown Show, Isabel Brown andAnti-racism scholar Dr Allison Wiltz. Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by: Birch Gold: Visit https://birchgold.com/piers to get your free info kit on gold. Oxford Natural: To watch their full stories, scan the QR code on your screen or visit https://oxfordnatural.com/piers/ to get 70% off your first order when you use code PIERS. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Just lashed that on her. That's what I happen. They lashed that on them. The death of Irene Zerutska is precisely what happens when cities adopt progressive policies. We often tell news stories for particular reasons. Black people get killed every day by black people. It usually doesn't make the news. So when we say that certain stories are being cherry-picked,

it's because it's not reflective of the actual data that shows that crime is down. As if you shouldn't care about the death of a beautiful, innocent 23-year-old girl who fled a literal war zone to be brutally murdered, presumably, simply because of her skin color and what she looks like. Did you understand when you call somebody like me far right, you lose instantly lose all credibility? Even Mark Lamont Hill wouldn't say I'm far right, I hope.

Would you mark? I'd say you're far wrong most of the time. That's fine. The shocking murder of Ukrainian refugee Irina Zarutka on a train in North Carolina has triggered justified outrage. There's justified suspicion that legacy media was too slow to cover the story to avoid inflaming racial tensions. A level of caution that seldom applies when the roles are reversed.

There is justified fury that anyone in America, no matter of their race, could face a jehines attack on a commuter train. There are justified questions about why the killer was free. US President Donald Trump said this. For far too long, Americans have been forced to put up with Democrat-run cities that set loose savage blood-theads. thirsty criminals to prey on innocent people. Really, very, very innocent people. In every place, they control radical left judges, politicians, and activists, and they've adopted a policy of catch and release for thugs and killers. In Charlotte, North Carolina, we saw the results of these policies when a 23-year-old woman who came here from Ukraine met her bloody end on a public train,

and here's a picture of it. This is the picture of it. And this is a picture of the woman, a beautiful young girl that never had problems in life with a magnificent future in this country. And now she's dead. Well, President Trump did not mention directly

was raised, but just about everybody else has. And that is where the question of what he's justified becomes a debatable point. Commentators are killing CNN's Van Jones, accused popular right-wing influence. of opportunism and race baiting. Why that man did what he did? We don't know how to deal with people who were hurting

in the way this man was hurting. Hurt people, hurt people. What happened was horrible. No one mentioned the word race, white, black or anything except him. Response to conservatives have been to point out a double standard citing nationwide fury of cases like Daniel Penny and George Floyd. So the narrative we hear from the media

is exactly what you would expect. They are infinitely more outraged at the alleged racially charged language of conservative pundits than they are at the actual butchery of an innocent woman by a 14-time career felon on public transportation. It's a vexed and contentious debate, which is why we're going to have it now. Joining me are the host of Beck News,

Mark Lamont Hill, Christopher Rufo, author and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, Isabel Brown, host of the Daily Wire's All-New Isabel Brown show and Dr Alison Wilson Wilson, Wiltz, the scholar and co-founder of writers and editors of color. Well, welcome to all of you. Christopher Rufo,

it struck me very quickly that there was an extraordinary lack of interest in this story from most of the mainstream media to the point where I posted on X. Why is this not getting more attention? It's one of the most shocking things that I've heard or seen in a long time. This innocent young Ukrainian refugee in America on a train, just being cold-bloodedly murdered on a train. And yet it was getting hardly any attention. in mainstream media.

First of all, on that point, why do you think there was such a collective lack of interest? Well, there's the obvious and much-discussed, racial, double standard at places like the New York Times and CNN and the progressive media. But I think there's a deeper reason. And the reason is this. The death of Irene Zerutska is precisely what happens

when cities adopt progressive policies. And so this is actually a didactic tale of what happens when you have a left-wing government, left-wing decarceral policies, left-wing bail reform, a left-wing magistrate judge who has, by the way, a DEI consultant as she moonlights. And this is what happens. You get people that have 14 convictions that have diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. In this case, this person's own family, DeCarlos Brown's own family, requested that this person be held in a psychiatric facility. But progressives have demolished all of the places that would have kept people safe,

and the end is quite simple. You end up with a girl that is stabbed in the neck on a train. This could be prevented. And the reason that it wasn't prevented in this case is simply because of the progressive policies adopted by Charlotte and really blue cities all over the country. Martin Hill, before I get your response to that, I want to play. This is an audio emerged today of DeC Carlos Brown talking to authorities, and he was asked why he did it.

She's from the Ukraine. She's from Russia. And, you know, they got a war, they had a war going on against the United States. So I'm just trying to understand, out of all people, why? That's, hey, it ain't, I don't have nothing. Hey, they just lashed out on her. That's, that, that's what happened.

They last out on her. Who was working out? Who was, whoever was working the material that last out on? I mean, Mottomont-Hill, there seems to be little doubt. that this was a man suffering from severe mental illness, that much is evident in the horrific act that he committed of murdering this innocent girl. But the fact that he had been convicted 14 times

and was still allowed to just be freely operating on trains in any way he saw fit to then be potentially able to commit this crime, that is a scandal. I mean, you may not agree with Christopher Rufo's characterization of it all being a left, wing problem that's created this. But it is a scandal. Somebody like that was out free

in that mental condition with that number of convictions, isn't it? Yeah. I mean, I agree with Chris that this is a scandal. I agree with you that it's a scandal. I also agree that it's an indictment on public policy. I don't think though that this is the result of liberal or progressive policies. It's quite the opposite, in fact. Unfortunately, for decades now, we have divested from mental health resources. We shut down mental institutions, mental homes, mental hospitals. We take out resources for drug treatment and rehab, and we criminalize

everything. And so if we had invested in housing, if we'd invested in health care, et cetera, we would have the structures and systems necessary to deal with someone so that they don't have to use the subway as a homeless shelter. We could deal with someone whose own family is saying, please give this person some support. If the only thing you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And in this country, the only thing we have is hardcore right-wing policies

that try to criminalize everything. And the reason, finally, that this isn't a story or hasn't been a national story, I don't think it's the racial angle of it as much as I think they're clear winners and losers. You know, when you and I debate, and you and I debate a lot of peers about these stories, it's often debatable.

because an issue is debatable because we're asking, for example, if someone's getting choked out on the subway, is the rider correct, put the choke hold on, or is the, you know, or should we be sat with the person who was doing harm on the train? If it's George Floyd, we're debating it because we want to know whether or not the police went too far, but they do have the right to use some kind of force,

but did they use too much force? And here, no one debates that the guy was wrong. No one debates that she was an awful, awful victim of an awful circumstance. And I think that's why we don't see more conversation about it, because it's not sexy. It's just an awful, terrible story to women who have to great sympathy for. Well, it shouldn't have to be sexy, should it? I mean, I would ask you, Mark, you know,

you lambasted Charlie Kirk in 2020 online. You said you tweeted nothing about what should happen to the officers who killed George Floyd, white supremacist, capitalist logic values property over black people. But I could throw back the same thing at you and say, we did a little check, and we couldn't find anything that you'd posted about the murder of this Ukrainian woman on a train

at the hands of a black man. And the criticism would be that by not saying anything about this, even as it was raging around on social media, you're making a calculated decision that you don't care very much about this. And the critics of you would say that that is a racial calculation you're making. That when it was George Floyd,

and it was a white policeman who was committing a heathes, I'll make no pretense about that at all. I said it at the time and believe it now. But when it was that way round, then you were absolutely steaming in on anyone who wouldn't share your view about it and wanted to be publicly very clear about that. But on this, it was like it hadn't happened. Yeah, I think there's a far more accurate and less interesting answer for that. And the truth is, I didn't hear about the story until recently. And I heard about the story because of the right-wing,

uh, vocal, right-wing people who were saying, hey, you guys are ignoring this for good reason or you guys are ignoring this because of a racial agenda. But this story was everywhere. Come on, come on, come on. Hang on. This story was everywhere. You're a journalist. You're a journalist. You're all over everything, right?

The idea that you weren't aware of it at all for three days. Come on. It's me you're talking to. I'm, all I can do is give you the honest answer. And the honest answer is I didn't, I didn't actually track the story until until I started hearing complaints about the story not being covered. And then I did cover it. But I'm saying on the first day, I didn't know about it.

Second day, I didn't know about it. That's the honest answer. But if you also look at my record, and I'm sure you did this because you're a devoted journalist, you know that I've covered many stories of white people who've been harmed by black people. I've covered many white people who face the death penalty. I've covered white people who are shot by police.

Unarmed white people who are shot by police. But my problem here with this, all right, my problem with this story in the way that it's played out is that it's so easy and so lazy for people to ignore the story in the mainstream media, as they did for several days, completely ignore it, and then only report it through the prism of all these right-wing hate-bangers are trying to play the race card with this story,

and that's why we're now doing it, which is what they've been doing. I saw some headlines in New York Times. I saw them on some of the CNN and others. And I was like, wow, what you think? That's the only reason. That's any justification for covering this is that because right-wing people on social media are saying it's outrageous that media aren't covering it. You can point to that is the story.

That's the nose. That's the peg. But it's not, though, is it? The peg should be that a beautiful young Ukrainian woman had her life snuffed out on a train. And the video is one of the worst things I've seen in a very long time. And my journalist, as you put it, my journalist, head. you know, after many years working in the media on both sides of Atlantic, is this is a huge story.

Not because right-wing people are saying no one's commenting on it, but because it's a disgusting heinous crime that's happened on a train in America. Yeah, I mean, the sad part peers is that disgusting awful crimes happen throughout the country, and they all deserve coverage. But in newsrooms, as you know, we often pick stories based on what will get ratings, what will draw attention. or for some of us who make connections. Why did the George, does he explain to me right now?

From your perspective, but Mark, that's the, that's the, that's the, that's the. Yeah, but Mark, final point to you before I move on to it to others. But I'm just, you know, I'm just curious. Why when George Floyd was killed and that video came out was there just this collective mainstream media horror that made this the biggest news story of the year, almost instantaneously. And yet here, there almost appear to be the collective opposite response

of just almost pretending it hadn't happened. And I don't buy the story that none of them saw it. I saw it. I saw a lot of people talking about it. And I was like, why is nobody covering this? This is heena. So I just think there is a clear,

there's a clear double standard there, which I'm really struggling to get my head round. I don't think that it's a double standard. Again, I think, I think the question is, and that was the third point I was making, is that sometimes when we cover news stories intensely, it's because they become windows into broader debates and issues.

In the case of George Floyd, there have been longstanding debate since country about the extent of police power, about the limitations of police power, about police violence, etc. Also, there's something counterintuitive about police killing somebody who is unarmed. I don't have an ex... When a gang member kills another gang member, I don't do a front-page story. It doesn't lead on my news show. Why? Because, one, it happens a great deal, and it's awful, but it happens a great deal. How many innocent young women? How many innocent young women are stab to death on a train? Let me finish a sentence. I have no expectation of a gang member protecting and serving me. I do of a police officer.

So it becomes a counterintuitive and dramatic story. In this case, I am horrified that this woman was I think it's awful. And there are many stories about people being killed on trains around this country. The fact that this particular one didn't get. told is unfortunate, but I don't think it's because she's white or because the assailant was black. I think, honestly, it's far more cynical than that. I think that people don't care, and often newsrooms pitch to what people care about, and people like sexy stories. They like counterintuitive stories. They like stories of corrupt power. And this isn't one of those things. Wow. I mean, it is to me. And let me bring in... And it is cynical. Let me bring in Isabel Brown here. Because, you know, to me, it is a huge story. And the

racial component cannot be ignored because we don't know for sure what the motivation was and he clearly is mentally ill. However, however, he was reportedly heard saying, I got that white girl after killing her, which, you know, if it was the other way around, that was a young, that was a beautiful young black girl who had been murdered by a white man who'd said, I got that black girl. I think all hell would have broken loose in the mainstream media. And I say that as someone who's been in the mainstream media for a long time, right? So it's on video. It's on literally on video, Mark.

We have no evidence. I mean, this is, I'm astonished, truly, peers, hearing what I'm hearing today, that it's just not a sexy story. We only cover things that people care about, as if you shouldn't care about the death of a beautiful, innocent 23-year-old girl who fled a literal war zone to come to the United States and live a peaceful, prosperous life. coming home from her work shift to be brutally murdered,

presumably simply because of her skin color and what she looks like. And we can say we have no evidence or we don't know what the real motive was in this situation all day long. But the truth is, in an eight-minute video that has now been viewed billions of times on social media, I hope, at this point,

we hear twice, not once, but twice. I got that white girl coming out of the mouth of the man who decided to commit this heinous crime. This is something that should be a firestorm for our culture. for our culture. But it's incredibly telling to me that within moments after George Floyd's death, you saw the Catholic University of America instantly put up a mural of the Virgin Mary cradling George Floyd. You saw an Instagram trend that took over every single leading company brand influencer, celebrities account, spurring millions of people to post a black square.

And you saw our society change overnight with the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement. But now you can see literal days go by with CNN having 42 plus thousand. stories of George Floyd on their website and zero search results for Arena Zarutka within several days after an attack like this happens. And the Wall Street Journal wait to weigh in on this until days later on page five of the newspaper in which their only headline was, women's stabbing death becomes MAGA talking point. This is the clearest window into how much the media is doing everything they can to pit people against each other.

And I, for one, am kind of grateful for how disgustingly they're treating this, because it's a wake-up call for humanity to realize we don't have to live this way. We don't have to expect that this is normal on a train ride home from work in Charlotte, North Carolina for a beautiful young girl trying to provide for herself and create a better future. And the expectation that this should be a normal response to this outrage is disgusting to me. The only thing I took issue with you about in terms of what you wrote about this, you said for almost two minutes, not one person sitting around Arena even called 911 or after she was okay. no one jumped up to try and stop the bleeding.

No one held her hand and prayed with her in the last moments. We effectively removed our common humanity from society. Shame on us. Now, I've watched this video the whole thing. It's horrific, but I've watched the full extended sort of sequence of events. I don't think most of the people, if not any of them, really realize what had happened. You know, you just, and it all happens very quickly. She kind of slightly slumps, but you certainly, if you weren't looking directly on what he did,

you may have just thought they'd slightly collided as he got up and walked away. So I don't think you can blame automatically the passengers for not being aware of what had happened to her. And it was a black man who first came to her aid, as it turned out. So again, I don't think there was a racial component of a lack of assistance that she received. Oh, I totally agree. And I certainly understand the immediate shock, because this did unfold so quickly. and it even takes arena 10 to 15 seconds to really fully understand what has just happened to her. The image that we see of her in a still of this video looking up and feeling completely petrified,

trying to work through these emotions, and then we see her accept her fate of, I probably am going to die in the next few seconds. I'm going to die alone as she puts her head in her hands. I think that's the really telling moment to me about how we respond to situations of tragedy like this. Skin color be damned. It doesn't really matter if you look the same as this young woman or not. 15 seconds is a long time. Think of how much screen time we all have every day

watching 8 million 15 second videos in our free time. It's enough time for people to at least glance in her direction to realize something is wrong here, to yell out, help or to call 911. And yet when you watch this series of events unfold on this video, it's so troubling to me that everyone looks out the window. They avert their gaze. They go back to their phone.

Someone pulls out their phone to record this, thinking it's more important to have clicks or views on social media about a tragedy than to try to help an innocent young woman in the most desperate moments of her life. And then to see everyone get up and leave from their seats and try to leave the train is so telling to me that we can't even connect with someone who might be different from us

or who we don't even know her story in her last few moments on earth to comfort her and provide a sense of community around her last few moments because we're so afraid of something bad happening to ourselves. And we covered that on my show today that ultimately we can blame 8 million policies. prescriptions for why this happened and what needs to happen moving forward. But I hope this is an

interesting moment for America to take a long, hard look in the mirror and say, honestly, shame on us. Because we know what could have happened on the other end of things. If someone did have the courage to stand up and do something, we saw it with Daniel Penny mere months ago and everyone tried to attack him as this horrible, evil individual for society. But he said, consequences be damned. I might end up in prison, but hopefully my soul will receive an award for this in heaven. And I can honestly hit my pillow at night saying I did what I could to protect my community today, no matter who is being hurt on the hands of evil. Okay, Dr. Allison Wilson Wilson, what is your response to the way this story has been covered by the media? Well, first of all, I would say that I also first heard about it, actually from trolls online who made me aware of the story and they were instantly telling me why didn't you focus on this?

Secondly, I would like to say that the stabbing itself was tragic, and I think that all of us should be sending condolences to her friends and family. I think it's essential to point out that some misinformation has been shared so far. Violent crime is actually down 31% in Washington, D.C., 29% in Baltimore, and 29% also in Charlotte, where this crime took place. So when we say that certain stories are being cherry-picked, it's because it's not reflective of the actual data that shows that crime is down. That being said, also last month, if we're going to talk about selective outrage, there was a black woman who was unfortunately stabbed by a white man on a public bus in Tulsa, Oklahoma. And none of the people on this day so far have addressed that last month. So I think if we're going to call out selective outrage, I think that's fine. so we can grow and be better.

But I think we have to be honest that the black woman who was stabbed last month that luckily she survived, she was randomly stabbed by a white man. I don't tend to think of this as a racial story. That being said, the investigation needs to play out. If this is a hate crime, it should be acknowledged as such. That being said, FBI data shows that black people

are actually the group who are most likely victims of hate crimes in this country. And they're also the most likely to be wrongfully convicted a homicide. But why would you be saying that now? I mean, what relevance does that have? Because I think it's important. But what relevance does that? Hang on. What relevance? But in a way, you're playing a sort of crude form of what aboutery? Because actually is good, I'm talking about. All these statistics you're talking about have nothing to do with her death. Right? It's nothing to do with it. Well, it has to do with people saying that it's unsafe. People are saying there's a culture of unsafety.

and I'm trying to provide the facts to show that people's feeling is... That's not what we're debating. I'm not debating about whether the crime statistics or this, this or this. So you want to debate whether or not they should pay attention to the story? What I'm curious about is why there was a collective refusal to treat this story with the same kind of magnitude that it deserved. Right, but that wasn't true. I guess I can't...

All I can do is be honest in my point, and I can show you on Twitter, the moment I found out. is when someone responded to an unrelated post. I was talking about selective empathy because that's something that I talk about frequently. And they posted and said, well, I didn't hear you say anything about this. That's when I started to look into the story.

Have you said anything about it now on X? Not yet, but I'm preparing a story. I wanted to investigate. But why haven't you said nothing? I mean, with all due respect, if this was a major story in the national media, as this has become in the last two days, and it involved a white man killing a black girl

and being caught on tape saying, I got that black girl. I suspect you would have posted about it. And by the way, this works both ways, right? There are people on the other side of this, right, who I would have made the same accusation to. Selective interest in stories based on your agenda, your narrative. So what happened about the story last month?

In August, when the black woman got stabbed, isn't that evidence of your selective empathy on the far right to not have called out that story. What do you mean far? Are you saying I'm far right? Well, I don't know. Nobody here is. Have you ever watched anything I've ever done?

Do you know anything about me? I have. I have watched. Yeah, you're Pierce Morgan. You think I'm on the far right? I think some things. So I'm a progressive. So let's start there.

Why don't you tell me one far right thing I've ever said? Well, I feel like you fall into far. One. I'll take one. Okay. So I think that your line of questioning, your line of targeting comes from a far-right political perspective because it's why you're calling out selective empathy for this, but not the selective empathy last month. Do you understand when you call somebody like me far-right, you lose instantly lose all credibility? Even Mark Lamont Hill wouldn't say I'm far right, I hope. Would you mark? No, I'd say you're far wrong most of the time. That's fine. And that's a good joke. But actually, let me ask a question.

But in a way, Dr. Allison, in a way, Dr. Allison, here's the problem. It's a bit like when the progressive left say Trump's a new Hitler, they're all a bunch of Nazis. When you say ridiculous things to try and distract from whatever the particular thing is, you lose all credibility. You lose all credibility. When your response to me saying if it was the other way round and you had a white man on tape saying, I got that black girl after literally executing her in cold blood on a train. It's literally your response is, well, you're far right.

That's why you're saying. That's why you're asking me. It is a distracting tool which makes you lose credibility. You're not answering my question. You're just trying to turn it into, well, the only person who are thinking about is a far-right lunatic. Allow me to answer. No, I don't think you're a far-right lunatic at all. I think that there's a certain political ideology that causes you to focus.

and accuse others of not focusing on this story, when in reality, if we look at just last month in August, there was a similar story where a white man stabbed a blacker. So if we're talking about selective empathy, I provided a perfect example of if that was truly the concern that could have been brought up. And instead of us having an honest discourse about that, if I'm wrong about you being far right,

then my apologies. My intention is not to mess up represent you. My intention is to try to understand to the best of my ability and to communicate. Let me bring in Christopher Roefat. Yeah, let me ask a question for. Allison. Allison, you have taught us to look at things through a racial lens. You've taught us not to cherry-pick stories that don't reflect underlying statistical and racial disparities. Maybe you can

settle this question for us, because under your theory of looking at things through a racial lens, it's relevant in the case of the DeCarlos Brown murder. What demographic group has the highest rate of homicide, and what demographic group in particular has the highest rate of interracial homicide? So for black people in this country, black people are the most likely to be sentenced. No, no, answer my question. Which demographic group has the highest homicide rate? And which demographic group has the highest rate of interracial homicide?

Simple question. Well, white and black interracial crimes are very similar statistically. Among white people is around 80-something percent around white people. It's around 90 percent. Look it up. I invite anyone to look at us. But I'm not asking about intracial. I'm saying interracial.

Which demographic group has the highest rate of homicide and highest rate of interracial homicide? It's a very simple question. That's white people. White people are the most likely to commit hate crimes. I said white people. White people are, white people are the group that are most likely to commit hate crimes in this country

according to FBI data. So that's your answer. That's an answer to a different question. And I provided you the second answer to. And look, Mark Lamont Hill knows this. You know this, and this is precisely the point that Pierce has been making. The reason this story is generating attention, and the reason this story is generating attention,

in particular, after five years of George Floyd hysteria, is that the simple underlying fact is this. Black men have the highest rate of homicides in the United States by a long shot, and black men have the highest rate of interracial homicides against white people and, in particular, against white women. This is an ugly statistic. None of us wish it were true. But if we want to talk about disparities, if we want to talk about looking at things through a racial lens, you have to grapple with this fact. This is not an outlier. This is in fact,

Black people are seven times more likely to be more than convicted of murder. So if you want to talk about statistics, let's talk about the fact that black people are seven times. Yeah, but all due respect. Yeah, but hang on, hang on. Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. It's a relevant. I mean, let me just ask. Asked Montemont Hill to respond to Christopher there. Because on those two points at Martin Monhill, do you dispute what Christopher is saying? US national debt is more than $37 trillion. And these are uncertain ties to the global economy.

It's enough to make you think. Maybe now would be a good time to buy some gold. Whether it's a hedge against inflation, peace of mind during global instability, or just sensible diversification. Birch Gold Group believes that every American should own physical gold. and they created something special.

Until the 30th of September, if you're a first-time buyer, Birch Gold is offering a rebate of up to $10,000 in free metals on qualifying purchases. To start the process, request a free information kit now. Just text Peers, P-I-E-R-S, to 9-89-898. Make right now your first time to buy gold and take advantage of a rebate of up to $10,000

when you buy before the end of September. Text my name, Pears, to 989-89-89. Claim your eligibility and get your free information pack. Again, just text Pears to 989-89-89-8. Today's show is brought to you by Oxford Natural, makers of the optimum day and optimum night, all-natural supplements. Thousands of Brits and Americans are already taking them

with incredible results. Optimum Day is designed to boost energy and support weight loss throughout the day. Optimum night helps you relax and get deep, refreshing sleep. And don't just take their word for it. Here are just a few of their success stories. England football legend Michael Owen lost 40 pounds. Robbie, the face of AFTV, dropped over £100.

Linda, a top Laurel firm executive, lost £50. And Anita, an immigration lawyer, shed £60 to watch their full stories and found out more. scan the QR code on your screen or visit Oxford Natural.com slash peers. And here's the best part. Use the code peers, P-I-E-R-S, and get 70% off your first order. Get 70% off with the promo code, peers.

No, I think that the data speak, I think the data, I won't say it speaks for itself, no data speaks for itself, but I think the data is clear, the numbers are clear. The question for me, though, isn't that. The question for me is why Chris jump, to the conclusion that that's why it wasn't covered. I actually think the data actually supports a different conclusion.

Black people are more likely to be killed and to kill in the country. That's Chris's fundamental point, right? We could get into all the sociological and structural factors for why it's not black path. And I'm not saying Chris said this. It's not black pathology. It's not that we're more prone to kill. We're not naturally or biologically evil. He didn't say any of those things.

He simply mentioned two statistics. I just said that Chris did not say. Pierce, Pierce, Pierce, Pierce, Pierce, here, let me say. I just said I didn't say that Chris is saying that. Chris did not say that. Just listen to me. We don't always have to disagree. We agree on that point.

What I'm saying is, is that news stories and news coverage often does not or do not cover the most prominent victims of a crime or the most prominent purveyors of a crime. We often tell news stories for particular reasons. example, black people get killed every day by black people. It usually doesn't make the news. Why? Because we understand why. There are clear winners and losers. They're clear good guys and bad guys and how we tell the story. I'm not saying it's accurate in terms of how we tell the story. And it doesn't make the headline. Oftentimes, the stories that make the headlines are the ones that are counterintuitive or the ones that force us to examine relations of power. That is why we often, For example, if a police officer gets shot by a citizen,

if a gang member shoots a police officer, it doesn't usually make national news and stay on the news for two months. Not because we don't care about the police officer dying, but because there are clear good guys and bad guys, there are clear understandings of what should happen, and no one is disputing what the justice outcome should be. When it's the other way around, it gets more complicated,

and so we talk about it more on talk shows. That's all I'm saying. It's more complicated than that. And my sister's point a moment ago was an important one, and you focused on the right wing part and ignored the bigger point she was making. Because it was a weird in the show. You showed new. Somebody called me far right.

They honestly know nothing about me. Well, some people that I know have referred to you that way. Pierce, peers, peers. Okay. You're not all right. Nobody's called me far right in my entire life. Until now. I'm sorry.

It's the first time for ever. It's okay. It's never been calling far right by anybody. But, peers, even now you're not allowing to make the other point, to focus on the other point, you're still focusing on not being far right. We all agree you're not far right. Now let's move to the actual point. Earlier you were saying that if the tables were turned, we would be covering it. And she was pointing out an example of when the tables were turned and we in fact did not cover. We as a media group.

Was there, and even on the show, we don't cover every story? Okay, but was there, in that case, let me ask Dr. Allison, to be fair, was there a, tape which had a clear potential racial motivation to that murder in that other instance. No, it wasn't filmed in the same way. So they are qualitatively different in terms of what could be reported. As a former newspaper editor, the moment you have someone on tape saying after they have murdered someone on a train, I got that white girl. There is a clear potential.

And I accept the guy was mentally sick. but there is a clear potential racial motivation. And I'm simply saying, and I think I'm saying this from a position of some strength here based on recent history in the way American media cover these stories, had it been the other way round, had it been a form of the George Floyd story,

and you had someone on tape, in the instance you're talking about, saying, I got that black girl, I think it would have been a completely different ballgame in terms of how the media covered it. And so there to me is, a clear double standard. And that is why I now resent.

I now resent, I'll bring Isabel in here. I really resent the way the mainstream media, having ignored it, and now feeling that the only way they can cover it is to focus on the MAGA influencers, trying to make it a race story, when actually there is a tape there. There is a clear motive, apparently there, on tape

of a racial motivation that may have inspired it. It may not be... From a potentially mentally disabled person. Okay, fine, fine, but I don't think you would have, I mean, obviously, hang on, hang on, hang on, I don't think, Alison, with all due respect, I don't know you, for all I know, you might be far right too. But I know, laughable, right, isn't it, when you call people far right when they're not? I know, absolutely laughable. Well, I'm sorry, if I knew, if I knew you were not far right and that that would have offended you, I would have never said it. So just keep that in mind as well.

Right, when you go on somebody show called Pierce Morgan Uncensored, it might be a good idea. just an FYI, a journalist to journal, right, if you just do a little bit of basic fact-checking about who the host is. I did, but we have very different political ideologies. And once again, the way you're approaching this story, it does, to me, seem on the right. If not on the far right, it is not a center. But you are in a way, Alison, in a way, what you're doing right now is exactly what I'm talking about, right? What you're doing is you're trying to frame this whole thing around the prism of, I must be far right, because I'm trying to make a race element to this story, which doesn't exist,

and that's because I'm far right. In fact, as I've never said that a race component did not exist. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Let me explain before I ask a question. As I've tried to explain to you multiple times now, and I'll do it one more time, but please listen this time. There is a tape of this person saying, I got that white girl.

That suggests to me that there is a potential, not definitely, but a potential racist motivation to his execution of a beautiful young Ukrainian refugee on a train in America. And I'm sorry, that is a huge story. And if it was the other way around,

other way around, you wouldn't be racing to make excuses for this killer. You wouldn't be saying, I'm not making excuses for a killer. I don't think you would. No one has made an excuse. You have brought up his mental.

So allow me to respond very briefly. Very quickly. Very quickly. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So essentially, I've never said that there was no racial component. I agreed with you that we do not know that.

And the video, the audio, if that is accurate, does point to that. However, what I do in my writing is I focus on stories that are reflective of broader patterns. And the fact of the matter is, even if this is a hate crime, black people do not interrupt me. This reflects a very significant broader pattern. Do not interrupt me. Black people are the group that are the most likely to be killed from hate crimes in this country. That's a statistic that has not changed since Jim Crow. It is.

Look at the FBI. I invite anyone who listens to this to look for yourself. This is precisely the problem. You want to maintain the fiction that America in 2025 is Jim Crow. America, same as always. When the fact is that, that's not true anywhere. Charlotte has a black mayor. It has a black police chief.

It has a aggressive DBI policies. It has a black judge in this case who let this person to Carlos Brown go. You cannot blame white people for this situation. You cannot blame systemic racism. He is being charged with first-degree murder. That is not letting him go. This is a story that matters. This is a story that has a significant-

So it's a black woman. When you all talk, then we're going to hear an interview. I want to bring Isabel in. A black woman was sad last month. Alison, all due respect. If everyone talks, we can't hear a word. So, Isabel, to you. We're pressing to provide whatever explanation we possibly can to excuse the actions of this depraved young man.

And we can say he's struggled with mental illness. And that certainly is a conversation our society needs to be having. But to say, oh, no one's letting him out of prison. He was let out of prison 14 separate times. including after serving a five-year sentence for armed robbery, where he went out of his way to prove to society he was willing to kill someone in the process of committing a crime. So we need more health care resources.

Keep this person off the streets. No, we need to build more prisons. No, what are the mass incarceration capital of the world? That is about the process. Let Isabel finish her point. Please speak one another time, otherwise we can't hear. Isabel. Alison, you say we're focusing on these broad societal patterns and the big cultural topics that

purvey every single instance in the umbrella here. Let's just look at the last few weeks of how the media has treated the subjects that they don't want to talk about when an evil individual who potentially was struggling with mental health problems, I believe he was, decided to shoot up a Catholic elementary school with notes all over his journal detailing the evil behind all of this. And within hours, the mainstream media went out of their way to say, oh, well, we shouldn't feel really that bad because prayers don't work. Prayers don't work. Prayers don't work.

The only thing that works is pushing a left-wing agenda. This, to me, is indicative of the exact same behavior where we conveniently ignore something. Well, actually, it was actually worse. You know what? Well, prayers alone can't go off the side of the problem. Hang on, Alan. About to make a point. It was actually worse than that because what mainstream media did there in the guise of NBC, I think it was, they issued a public apology for misgender.

the trans murderer who was dead. We apologize for not using the right pronouns. Oh, piss off. Seriously. Exactly. I mean, what is the mainstream media doing? When they think the most important thing, the most important thing in the world

is to issue a public apology to a dead mass shooter for misgendering them, it is preposterous. It is, and it's exactly the problem that works. And by the way, Martin Hill, if you think that's progressive, you need to get out more and ask average Americans whether they think that's progress.

When you have a mainstream network, apologizing for misgendering a mass shooter. Well, to finish this point, to finish this point, look. The problem is this is... Well, hang on, let Mark defend the apology for the misgendering. No, no. Pierce, you set up an entire debate that I didn't... I haven't said a word,

and you've already disagreed with me, argue me down, and now you're wedging more space, so I can defend a position I never took. Let's say, it's about talking, and then I'll tell you what I actually think. Mark's going to say, which thing. Which sex was the shooter in Minneapolis?

Was the shooter in Minneapolis a man or a woman? Which is a trans person, correct? The shooter at Annunciation Catholic Church, the recent shooting in Minneapolis. Was it a man or a woman? Oh. For both of you?

Allison and Mark, was it a man or woman? I don't remember. I have to look at up to the story because I don't know if it was a trans man or trans man? Or trans trans trans person? I didn't know. I didn't know. that are theoretically involved in the news.

You guys certainly have your head in the sand on every major story of the last month. I think that everyone should be called the gender that they represent as. I don't understand. Unbelievable. Why is that? Why is that important?

Why is that being put at the time? I'd like to respond to that. I would like to hear why Martin Hill jumped in when I was berating NBC for that ludicrous apology. Why did you jump in there? I wasn't. I was saying, let Mark Lamont Hill

explain why he jumped in. Okay. If we want to be serious. First. Let Mark Lamont Hill respond. First, Chris, you may not know this, but I took a vacation for the last three weeks or so from my show and from doing most news shows

because my child was hospitalized and because my mother was sick. And so no, I actually have not been following this very much. I actually agreed to come on this show and I read in on this story specifically to do the show. So no, I haven't been. It's not, I'm not feigning ignorance. I'm saying I don't understand.

Well, I'm sorry to hear. I'm sure we disagree on the trans issue. I'm sure we disagree on the trans issue. I'm not ducking your question. I genuinely just wanted to give you an informed answer. Well, fine. Is a trans woman, a woman, or is a trans woman a man? A trans woman is considered a woman.

They're a trans woman. They're a type of woman. That's. Do some women have penises? Oh, my God. A trans woman made. But see, and you wonder why y'all said no far right people were on this show and y'all are trying to gaslight me and make me think i'm going to

you're far out on some psychedelics because uh hold on can you listen or can you open can i say one sentence hang on i'd like to take mark lamonthill back to the moment he interrupted me when i was berating mbc for publicly apologizing for misgendering a mass shooter so you jumped in there but i wasn't sure why right yeah i was jumping in to respond to a different point but but to answer your question, I do disagree with you slightly, in that they weren't, you said they were apologizing to a mass shooter. And I was simply saying they weren't apologizing to a mass shooter.

They were. They were. They were apologizing to the public. Wait, I thought you didn't know anything about this story, Mark. It seems like now you know all about it. Chris, allow me to finish what I'm saying, okay, you know what? You're right. I would assume that NBC is not saying, hey, Mr. Mass Shooter, I'm sorry for misgendering you. I was going on what the information peers just provided, which suggested that they apologized for Ms. Why would a mainstream... Please allow... No, I'm going to ask you a question.

No, Alison, I didn't ask you. I'm asking you. I'm asking much. I'm trying to answer your question. Why would a mainstream media company in America today issue a public apology for misgendering a mass shooter? Explain to me. Okay, so I feel like I've heard your question. I'd like you to allow me to respond just...

I'd love you to answer. by interruption. My answer to you is, again, based on the information you provided, because again, I didn't see the announcement. I'm only based on information that you just provided me. So again, so, so I understand, but Chris was saying, I got you. You said you didn't know and now you know. And I'm saying, I still don't know, only based on the information. Again, that. Again, that. It's thing to be why. So to answer, no, I'm trying to. I am trying to. You don't have to back, you don't depress me. I'm answering it. I'm happily to answer it. Sir, for someone who spent 10 minutes arguing why you weren't far right to a straw man,

you can certainly allow me 10 seconds to breathe. What I'm saying to you is as a news outlet, as a news outlet, as a news outlet, you have a responsibility to your audience. If you misgender the person you're talking about in a story, whether it's the good guy, the bad guy, the good person, the bad person, the correction and the apology is given for the audience's benefit, not for the assailant's benefit. why the Democrats, do you know why, hang on, hang on, hang on, don't start shouting. You've worked. You know what, Mark? You know what, Mark? You know what, Mark? I wasn't done respond. Do you know why the, I was not, the reason the Democrats. I have not given my, I have not

completed my answer. You have not heard my answer yet. I've tried so hard to hear your answer. Okay, one way to do it is to not talk while I'm answering. I thought you just answered it. Just let me finish. And I'm telling you, I haven't. Please allow me to, please allow me to Okay. Every news outlet issues corrections. And any news story that has been given in my 20 years in news, and I'm sure in your 74 years in news, you know very well that if anybody is misgendered, even if they're not trans, you issue a correction. So it is not uncommon to issue a correction. What is uncommon that you're correct about is that they don't typically apologize. I am simply saying that the apology wasn't, as you suggested, to a match shooter. I can only imagine that the apology

was to the audience because there are many people who are offended by that. And that's why they did it. Is that a political choice? I couldn't give it. I could not give. Here's my point, no mark. And apology for my language.

I couldn't give a fuck if they're offended. I couldn't give a fuck. Why would I care about them being offended about a mass shooter being misgendered? The problems with them. This is the problem with the progressive left. You've all lost your minds. You've forgotten what ordinary people think.

This is why the Democrats are now polling the lowest they polled in recorded history, because they say absolute nonsense like that. It's nonsense. Nobody should ever apologise to a mass shooter for mischendering them. I've got a few things I'd like to call that person, which don't involve his gender, right? Oh, I misgendered him. I couldn't give a fuck. Sorry, but this really enrages me.

It enrages me that we feel the need as a society to issue clarifications and apologies to dead mass shooters. It's preposterous. Anyway, I just want to give the last word to Isabel, because you've got to go, then I'll just have one last round up with the other. So, Isabel, where does this leave us? Now the mainstream media's caught up with this story,

and is now giving it plenty of attention, but all through the prism of, look at these right-wing lunatics, all making miss a race story, which I just think is so ridiculous. Notwithstanding the fact, there are right-wing lunatics, and there are left-wing lunatics.

We've just heard one. But Isabel, where does this leave us? Yeah, it's a great point, Pears. And it's important to bring this home because ultimately, you know, people are going to walk away from this, taking what they did from this debate. But this is precisely the problem

with the society that we live in today. We are receiving information through the prism of an agenda of powerful elite people who are doing everything they can to pit people against one another, the masses, who just don't know any better

and who need our programming to tell them what to care about. whether it's apologizing for the mispronunciation of pronouns of a dead mass shooter. And I noticed we referred to him as Mr. Mass Shooter a few minutes ago. So perhaps we need to apologize for that now. Or telling you that you shouldn't care about this incident on the Charlotte train, even though it's evoking a visceral response in you. And you know that this is wrong because it doesn't really fit the agenda of the race conversation

we're trying to push in this country and in Western civilization. Good people are waking up, though. And I think this is precisely why trust in the mainstream media. is at an all-time low, and the people are the media now. This is precisely why young people are getting news from TikTok and Instagram and YouTube channels rather than tuning in to MSNBC, CNN and the like, because we can no longer reasonably trust that the people who are the educated journalists in our society are actually going out of their way to tell us the truth.

Well, I think they all operate from a weird agenda. I mean, Alison, like my son's 32, 28, 24, right? And they were very, when the George Floyd thing happened, they were very keen that I do and say the right thing. They were like, Dad, you've really got to come down hard on this. It's disgusting. The videos are, I said, I know. Don't worry.

And I was. But today, they're all like, Dad, why has this story not got more attention? It's one of the worst things we've ever seen. Why did it not get the same attention as George Floyd? I said, I honestly don't have a rational explanation for this. It is one of the worst videos I've seen in a very long time. And yet, for some bizarre reason, a load of newsrooms in American media, looked at that video and decided it wasn't a story,

even though there was then an audio that came out that had the killer saying, I got that white girl. And my only point and observation about this is, I'm absolutely certain that if it had been the other way round and it had been a white guy killing a young, beautiful black girl and saying, I got that black girl, it would be of leading the news within minutes.

And that's the difference. And that is a problem. And it's not to say, Alison, you can set your head, it's not to say there aren't, Because of last month. There are many examples the other way around. I accept that and I call them out when I see them. I don't have a horse in this race other than I call it all out

when I see blatant double standard. And on this story, there's been a blatant double standard exacerbated by the way that mainstream media is now trying to report this story only through the prism of MAGA people playing the race card. And I think that's reprehensible. I really do. Alison. I think it's very unfortunate.

I think it's unfortunate that a lot of people want to cherry pick the story, but it's somebody who studies statistics and studies patterns in behavior. I can say that crime is down in Charlotte, 29%. We can walk and chew gum. We can mourn the loss of life of this beautiful Ukrainian immigrant woman who should have been protected here, right? And at the same time, we have to be careful not to stereotype, not to overgeneralize, not to fearmonger,

Because what we need is systemic solutions to systemic problems. But everybody race to generalize about police officers in the Derek Chovac story. The statistics show that. Okay, so you're generalizing. With all due respect, no, no, with all due respect, this is the part I think you're missing. And I want to bring a scientific lens to this. The reason why George Floyd was a big story is because black people in America are three times as likely to be killed by the police. If that statistic was not true, I do not think it would have.

been that story. But Alison, you've steadfastly ignored Chris Rufo's two statistics he gave you, which so that there is a pattern. I haven't. I addressed him. There is a pattern in this story, which you're not interested in. You're not even prepared to accept his statistics,

which Martin-Monten has accepted are correct. No, what I said was literally, white people are the group that are more likely to commit hate crimes. You're talking about another statistic. Let me finish because other people were allowed to finish. But you won't answer Chris Rufo's statistics. I am, I am, but you will not allow me to get to that. Do you admit he's right?

I admit that he's right. His interpretation is wrong. Black people are also seven times more likely to be wrongfully convicted. So when you talk only of the... When you talk... You're playing what about you. I'm sorry, but you are. No, I'm not.

You're playing what's a boundary and your justification for the coverage of the George Floyd story was there was a pattern. All right, Marlon, Mon. Because you're trying to push a narrative, you won't let me finish it. I'm not pushing any narrative. Let me respond to the point that she's raising because I just looked it up. You're wrong on actually all counts. For someone who studies supposedly studies statistics, I would recommend that you find a different

line of work because not only are you willfully blind to the two statistics I've raised, which group has the highest homicide rate, which group has the highest interracial homicide rate, but according to FBI statistics, actually per capita, black Americans have a higher rate of committing hate crimes than white Americans. There's a statistical disparity there. That not in absolute terms, but in per capita terms. Even your prize statistic that you're using as a shield to ignore the reality all around you

indicates that you don't even understand that statistic. You can't even say the statistic. So let's address this. Let's address this before we move on. Because you keep pushing a narrative. We're going to address it. Black people in this country are more than seven times, more likely to be wrongfully convicted of murder.

So when you only focus on the arrest, when you only focus, when you only focus on the arrest and not on the fact that many of these black people are exonerated, you are pushing a narrative and that is not reflective of the data. And I have never denied that black people

are the more likely to be accused of committing violent crimes. But you have to take into consideration that a lot of those convictions don't stick. And if you don't take that in a consideration, you're simply not being honest in dealing with good faith. I never deny that. Hang on. Hang on.

Can you explain to us the statistics of per capita? Okay. I want to give a last word to you now. I want to give a last word to, well, first of all, first of all, I want to ask Montal Hill, how's your mother doing, first of all? Because I didn't ask you in the moment. Much better. She's recovering pretty well. Okay, good. That's good to hear. Thank you for asking.

And let me just, I'll give you the final word here. Because it seems to me, Mark, the reason. The reason I'm exercised about this story is I think there is a clear double standard. And I don't like the way that the only time mainstream media felt the urge to report this is because they can use it as a way to bash the MAGA right. So here's my response. I think you put us in an impossible position. And I mean us, I mean people who are arguing the opposite.

If you say there's a double standard, the only way to prove that there isn't a double standard is to cite counter-evident. When we cite counter evidence, you then say that's what about or what aboutism. There's no way to prove that it doesn't happen in the converse unless we point and say, well, look at this black person who also got ignored. And in which case, you say it's what aboutism. I think it's important to point out the disparities here and the differences here. My point here is that they're not necessarily reducible to race. I actually find Chris's point more interesting. And one more point.

Again, I have not heard the audio saying that this, that I can. got the white girl. I've heard the claims that that was said. I did not hear. I'm not saying it wrong. Again, I read it on the story very intensely. I believe you. And I think that makes, I think that changes the dynamics. If that is in fact true, again, I have yet to hear the audio. But if you two say you heard the audio, I take you at your word. If that is in fact true, I think that does add another layer to the story. But to me, the more important thing about this story is not necessarily whether or not we talk about race in terms of why we don't, or or the role of racing why we don't talk about this story.

For me, what's more interesting is all the other stuff that gets the person here. Why is this person out of prison but not in a mental institution? What are the circumstances under which they got supervised or didn't get supervised? Why do they have access to weapons? Why is the subway a place where they're able to frequent so often? There are lots of policy issues that I think play into why we're talking about this. And if I were to have to choose between your analysis and Chris's analysis, I would lean more into Chris's, even though I disagree with his conclusion.

The problem here isn't liberal policy. It's the fact that we don't have enough progressive policy, and all we have is a carceral state that does not seek to heal or invest or protect or educate, but instead only wants to incarcerate. So that's where I think we end here. And I think finally... But he was laid out of prison 14 times. We don't have enough of a carceral state. He was let out of prison 14 times, sometimes immediately.

We actually should have had him in prison. That would have been the solution to this problem and prevented this senseless death. And Chris, again, I think that's missing my argument here. You said like he was laid out of prison a bunch of times. Yes, remember I began by saying, all we have is a hammer. Everything looks like a nail.

I'm saying he was let out of prison, but he wasn't let into a mental institution. What would a secure confinement mental institution where he gets actual treatment and care to look like? Well, look, there's no... I'm going to wrap things up, but there's no doubt. There's no doubt there was a series of failures at almost every level here, but I include the mainstream media.

And I think they let themselves down here, and I think they exposed a bias. And I was hoping we were moving away from that because it's so obvious and so easy for social media to blow up and expose it and say this is clearly biased. Anyway, we're going to leave it there. Very interesting debate. I appreciate you all coming on.

And you think the media, you think the media is, You think the media's biased against white women? No, that's it? I think the liberal media is... Just so I'm clear. I think the liberal media is skewed in a way that they cover these types of stories. And had it been the complete reverse of the story, then I think it would have got a lot more attention, a lot more quickly. Last month, it didn't get any attention.

Yeah. And again, she just shows you the counter evidence. She proves you wrong with that. And then you say, what about is it? Let me ask you. Let me ask you, was there, was there a video? Was there a video? Was there a video?

When you and I worked at CNN Pierce. Let me ask Allison. When you and I worked at... Hang on, let me ask Allison. Was there a video? Was there a video of the killing? Was there an audio where it suggested a racial motivation? Yes or no?

The crimes were not the same. So no. Okay. So if that's all you... If that's all, because you want to ask a leading question. And it didn't result in a death. So go ahead. You got your answer to your leading question.

Okay. It is because the only reason you think it's not the same. Now you're exposing your bias because when a black woman's throat was slashed by a white man, suddenly that's not worthy of covering, but you're here trying to discipline us and school us and school black people and journalists on which you consider

the left for not covering a story when you yourself were guilty of the same thing last month. The only thing I want to school you about, Allison, is the fact that I'm not far right. Other than that, you... I believe you... You are entitled to your opinions, and I respect them, and I respect the fact...

I don't know, Pierce... After this conversation... The trans debate kind of made me question that. All right. I've got to leave it there. I'll take my little far-right skin. Thank you. On to the next debate.

Thank you all very much. Hello and welcome. We'll be giving us some breaking news. Woke is dead. The war on common sense is officially over. Cancelled celebrities are emerging from Twitter jail. Virtue signaling has been outlawed under punishment of mass ridicule. And we are finally free to call a spade a spade.

So what was the cause of death? How did the silence majority finally win? and what exactly is going to take its place. Woke is dead is my definitive story on the rise and fall of woke, as well as the common sense heroes and PC villains who have dominated news and culture across 10 years of madness. It's also my personal roadmap back to a less divided world. A world where we can agree to disagree,

where debate triumphs over censorship and where common sense is king. You will be shocked by how much you agree with me.