Piers Morgan's unfortunate bout of shoddy journalism and ignorance in an interview with transgender activist Janet Mock was a learning experience for both parties. The take-home message? Make fewer assumptions.
Brandishing his iconic Britishness and being every bit as polite as his mother had taught him, Piers opened his initial interview of Mock with praise:
"Janet Mock has a remarkable life-story," he said.
Unwittingly, though, Piers was to offend his guest in the very next sentence by saying that Janet had been "born a boy."
He partly rectified what Mock would later label sensationalism by trumpeting his total support of and empathy with the trans* community, including the LGBTQ movement generally.
The 10-minute interview seemed entirely civil throughout. At one point, Mock even laughs with Piers over the fateful day when she revealed her past to her male partner, Piers saying that, "In 2009 you meet a man, and you fall in love. But there's something you have to tell him: that you, yourself, used to be a man."
All up, both interviewer and interviewee where very respectful to each other in what ended up as an enlightening, engaging interview. Mock had promoted her book, and we'd all learnt at least something about the stigmatisation and challenges trans* people face. Piers could have asked her more about the activist work Mock is involved in, but the hook of the story was the release of her book - a book about her personal story growing up as a trans* woman. So I don't wholly blame him (or his producers) for choosing the focus that the interview ended up having. Plus, it's not like interviewees have no control over an interview; Mock could have at any point stopped Piers and ask him to take a different line of questioning, or correct what she felt was offensive language. But she didn't.
What Mock and her supporters did do, however, was criticise Piers online over his word choices when the interview was broadcast:
In response to the overwhelming Twitter criticism, and because he felt Mock had been dishonest by not speaking up during the first interview, Piers asked Mock for a second appearance on his show to clear things over.
As the primary school saying goes, first is the worst and second is the best - and it was. As expected, the second interview was more vigorous, but it also more insightful. Mock, as it turns out, was inexperienced with taking major media interviews and thus wasn't comfortable asserting herself in the situation to correct Piers the first time they met. Likewise, Piers was also inexperienced with interviewing trans* women and thus wasn't aware of the offensiveness of his language.
Compounding this unfortunate mix of inexperience were unreasonable expectations of knowledge on both sides. For Piers, Mock expected him to have more knowledge of trans* issues, and for Mock, Piers expected her to have more knowledge of media and PR etiquette. This mismatch of expectations and realities sent the pair on the path to inevitable altercation.
Related: The Feed's Patrick Abboud interviews transsexual adult film star Buck Angel about his life and experiences.
It's a shame, but it's a lesson learnt for all sides. If you want your support to be inoffensive and effective in a proper sense, then make attempts to learn from the community you are supporting as much as possible. Similarly, if you are one of the communities in need of allies, be assertive but not rash in your media presence, and be prepared to teach people. After all, fighting one brand of ignorance with another is a bit like defacing a historical site to bring attention to history. There's an irony to it, but it does more harm than good.
Tom Burns is a Melbourne-based writer who studies bioethics and neuroscience.
