She might have gained a larger audience through Piers Morgan, but I'm not sure she did a good job of explaining herself in the time offered. She is really struggling to explain this whole "truth versus reality" thing. She's keeps saying that it's a nuanced long-term discussion, but this isn't really the time for a nuanced long-term discussion.
She's definitely capable of succinct yes/no answers, as evidenced by some of her final responses to Piers Morgan in this interview.
Question: "Do you have any problem with gay marriage?"
Answer: "No, I don't."
Question: "You support it?"
Answer: "I do."
Question: "So you support full gay rights?"
Answer: "Absolutely."
I have no reason to believe that she's being false with these answers. Why did it take her two weeks to answer these pretty basic questions in a direct manner? I mean, she has been dodging these questions ever since that messed up performance in San Francisco in an effort to make a point -- a nuanced point that few are getting. Instead of losing her argument. She should have been direct from the beginning and then gone on about "truth versus reality."
I guess my biggest complaint about Michelle Shocked's explanation is that she really seems to blame her audience for her statements. They chose "Reality," which forced her to discuss gay rights, religion, and Proposition 8. The audience wasn't ready for their choice of "Reality" and she wasn't ready for their choice either, according to Shocked. The audience had no clue what she was talking about when she asked them to choose "Truth" or "Reality." It's pretty messed up that she's attempting to blame them for her statements.
Anyway, you can watch her interview here: