Reading the New Republic for its entertainment value because one apparently can't expect them to be too accurate

I guess that I have a hard time understanding why anyone would read the New Republic for anything other than entertainment.  Here is their discussion on my interactions with Piers Morgan:

Morgan’s current determination is hard to deny. His effectiveness is less clear. For one thing, there’s the way he handles guests. Morgan tends to let hotheads like Jones rant unchecked (ostensibly to expose their insanity, though after a point, he is just giving them a bigger platform). But then he steamrolls authors and academics whose logic is actually worth debunking. Take economist and gun-rights proponent John Lott, whose head Morgan permitted to occupy one side of a split-screen while he talked over him for ten minutes. Lott, author of the book More Guns, Less Crime, attempted feebly to interject, but Morgan wasn’t having it. “I am going to keep talking, so I suggest you keep quiet,” the host informed the guest. To which Lott replied, shoulders slumping: “I don’t see what the point of having anybody on is if you’re going to talk for ninety percent of the time.” And still Morgan barreled on. . . .

The quote from me was made at 10:59 into this video.  As far as I tell my shoulders didn't slump and I didn't stop responding, but I suppose that it the New Republic's attempt at trying to prove that I somehow felt defeated. In addition, I would like to believe that at least viewers learned that gun bans caused murder rates to rise and that Piers was very selective in the data that he picked.