Hello there to you.

Thanks so much for joining us on BBC News.

So you have publicly expressed support for Piers Morgan.

Tell us why, Because I think he should be allowed to express his opinion.

And I think we need more people who are willing to push boundaries, not less on the air.

And we're just cracking down on free speech in a way that I find really alarming, and it doesn't I don't have to agree with everything, Pierce says.

I just have to support his right to say how he actually feels.

And if people get offended, that's okay.

Sometimes when you're in the business of talking about difficult issues and stories for a living, some people will take offense.

Although the online campaign against peers seemed very organised yesterday by his pre existing detractors, um, so I just I'm in favor of his right to have his own opinion, and I get alarmed when we see that getting shut down, left, right and center when I don't know how controversial it is to say that he just doesn't believe Megan Markle like he doesn't know.

Why doesn't he get to believe her?

It's so interesting what you say, because no one would question his right to have an opinion.

They would question his right to express it as a journalist on television.

Isn't there a responsibility on journalists to maintain a degree of impartiality when they're reporting on a news story?

Well, I don't think that's been peers brand right and, like, I don't get to watch him on Good Morning Britain a lot because I'm here in the States.

But I read his column at The Daily Mail all the time, and I would put him more in the field of, I don't know, like a Glenn Greenwald here in the States while he's in Brazil.

But somebody who is both opinion and journalism and peers has never been shy about expressing his opinion, and he often takes controversial positions, and he's been beaten up on Meghan Markle and Prince Harry for a long time.

So I think his brand is what they hired, and he didn't really deviate from it this week, so, but maybe he went too far because the media regulator, Ofcom, got over 40,000 complaints from the public.

They clearly thought he went too far.

You can't go by that, though.

I mean, they broke records for their viewership yesterday.

They had millions of people tuning in, right?

So it's like 40,000.

Okay, Think of all the people who had absolutely no problem with peers or if you went out and said to them They're thinking about cracking down on piers speech.

People need to write in to save them.

How many would you have gotten?

You can't give a heckler's veto.

And even if Piers was in trouble, okay, so you slap his hand and he went out there yesterday morning and he said, Look, if somebody is struggling with mental health, if somebody is suicidal, I 100% support their right to seek help.

And if she did, in fact complaints, something should have been done.

And there should be an investigation into why it wasn't if it wasn't.

But he's basically saying, I don't buy it.

I haven't listened to the whole interview and knowing this person, do not believe what she said.

He's entitled to that belief.

I don't think it's irresponsible for him to say, having covered her now for years, day in, day out, much more than the average person.

I have good reason to believe she's not a credible person in this or many other things, she says.

But perhaps he has offended too many people by saying that he doesn't believe her, particularly on the issue of mental health, which is a very sensitive subject.

It is.

I'm not going to dispute that and I've covered, You know, I've covered that a fair amount in my career, and I understand it's difficult for people to talk about mental health.

Yes, which is why I'm always outing myself as being in therapy.

It's working so far, but I think she took a risk right in disclosing that.

But I don't think her doing that requires everyone to believe it.

And I don't think it's unsound for a commentator to say I'm not buying and I think she's going for sympathy.

It's not how I feel, but I don't think people being offended.

Some faction of a huge audience being offended should cancel somebody's right to speak out, right?

Yes, Generally we need to be a little ginger around difficult issues, But if that's what you want, you know you don't put Piers Morgan in the seat.

They put Piers Morgan in the seat to get eyeballs, and he brought that show to where yesterday it was number one and their viewer skyrocketed.

He and Susanna had this great dynamic.

The public enjoys it.

They clearly enjoy it.

They may not always like it.

They may hate him on Monday and like them on Tuesday.

He's been great and great Britain on the covid stuff.

But you can't just keep yanking people's microphones off because they happen to have an opinion that some people may find offensive.

I wonder if part of your difficulty with the Meghan interview on Piers Morgan's difficulty was the nature of the questioning.

The Duchess of Sussex is only going to put her point of view, and what else would she do?

But I wonder if you would have been less frustrated and he might have been less frustrated if you felt that the interview was more combative, not combative?

No, I didn't want to see that and Oprah's.

She started her career as a journalist, but she's been a talk show host for the past 30 years.

So she's sort of in a different line when it comes to how she approaches these interviews, and I'm sure that's why she was selected.

But I as a journalist, I have really wanted to see Oprah in general.

She's done a couple of interviews on big cases here in the States recently.

One was the Michael Jackson documentary, and now this where it's not believing.

It's not that I'm on the side of the Michael Jackson estate, Um, but I wanted to see more probative questioning, and when she talked to Megan, I think she does.

The audience applauded overall, did a great job, but I think it in not pressing for more specifics over to the audience and Megan a disservice, because if somebody practiced law for 10 years, I can tell you it's the facts.

It's the details.

It's the specifics that convince people, and she would have done everyone a better favor and a better a better service.

If she had said who had the palace told you that they were going to help you when you reported that you were feeling suicidal, who specifically and then when you say you went to HR who specifically name names.

Okay, You don't want to name who is the alleged racist within the royal family?

Can you tell me whether it's one of these four?

Can you rule out like, on the spot?

You should have said, Can you rule out the Queen and Prince Philip because she had to go do cleanup on that the next day?

Like press, people were jealous of Megan, which he went on the Australia tour.

And that's one of the things that led to the deterioration.

Who?

What's your evidence of that?

How did you know that?

You have to, you know, as a presenter, showing instead of telling is much more compelling.

And I think that didn't happen.

Um, just again, on the question of Piers Morgan, I wonder if there is a cultural difference as well that in Britain, broadcasters are by and large, expected to stay impartial and objective.

Piers Morgan was always given more more leeway if you like, But I mean, he was on a fairly extreme end.

Not so much the case in the United States.

You're probably right.

I will tell you, just as an American journalist.

I don't understand this off calm.

And I can't imagine working in a world where I had to answer to somebody other than my boss, my audience and myself, my own conscience.

Like, you know, we're pretty big on free speech over here.

Uh, so I don't like the idea of a government tapping me on the shoulder to say, like, I don't like the way you said that, but I don't know.

I love Great Britain, and I think you're presses really fun, So it must be working to some extent.

And can I just ask you separately?

You yourself have been the object of personal criticism by the former President Trump over your handling of one of the presidential debates.

So you know what it's like to come under personal fire.

How did you deal with that?

Well, I've been thinking about that a bit in recent days, because when I listen to Megan Markle, I understood her talking about how awful it is to be the scourge of the press.

I got it.

I mean, trust me, I've been there many times.

Um, but, you know, my thought was why didn't the palace protect me?

Why didn't that?

So the palace can't protect you from the press.

The press.

As you know Rita is going to do what is going to do, and there's only so much anybody can reel them in, and I have experienced that, too.

And when you put yourself in the public eye, as I have as you have, and certainly as she has on a much larger level at some level you got to say it's time to put your big girl pants on and understand this comes with the job.

It's unpleasant.

You have to find ways of tuning it out and go on living your beautiful life.

And I think Megan trying to say the palace didn't protect me, and people said negative, like That's part of the job.

I know it's unpleasant.

I know it involves race.

I've been on the receiving end of tons of sexism, so I get how painful that kind of thing can be.

But it's baked into the cake that we've all chosen to each when we become public figures.

Okay, very good to talk to you.

Thank you so much.

That's Megyn Kelly, American broadcaster.

Thank you so much.