In the context of a petition calling for Piers Morgan to be sacked, I can understand why OP mooncuplanding asked, "Could we take a moment to appreciate Piers Morgan" - rather than, say, "Could we take a moment to appreciate the actions of Piers Morgan in . . . " (whatever . . . exposing the totalitarian mindset of the "liberal left", . . . challenging the tenets of gender ideology, . . . bringing the lunacy of "100 genders" to wider attention, . . . platforming and interrogating trans activist extremists, . . . refusing to bow to TWAW "no debate" demands, . . . giving air time to transsexuals who oppose transgenderism, etc. etc.)
I have never seen Piers Morgan on TV but I have watched the "trans debate" videos brought to my attention on Mumsnet and Twitter. I have never read anything he has written. All I knew of "Piers Moron" until very recently was that, as a good leftie woman, I was expected to do my duty by hating and reviling him unquestioningly - certainly not sully myself by taking a peek at him and judging for myself. I was never inquisitive enough about him to bother to do that anyway.
In the videos I have seen, I find it very irritating how he talks over his co-presenters and gives them little or no opportunity to get a word in edgeways. Personally, I feel that their minimal contributions add a lot of value - and that the programme would benefit from PM making a conscious effort to zip-it more often in order to hear their questions.
Is he "doing more harm than good", ie. in that he is gender critical, so leaving GC feminists open to the charge that we are "just like Piers Morgan" or that GC feminists "support Piers Morgan" (as a person and everything he says and does)?
Only if we think it will actually make a difference that some will levy those charges, in an attempt to undermine GC feminists and GC feminism and that any possible "reputational damage" outweighs the benefits of PM both giving two fingers to the "no debate" mob and his contribution to the debate.
I don't buy the illogical line that one person's contribution to ensuring that there is a debate, whoever they are, should be dismissed as irrelevant simply because others got there earlier or have a different motivation or face greater threat speaking out or because we agree with them on other things.
On balance, I think P Morgan's contribution is very helpful, whatever his motivations on this issue or his views and actions on other issues.
As an aside, on other FWR threads recently, GC feminists have reiterated that Gender Critical Feminism is not a "movement", that we are all individuals with a common cause but otherwise wildly disparate in terms of eg. political affiliations, religious beliefs, styles and methods of activism, acceptance or rejection of particular "allies".
We can say that as often as we like but actions speak louder than words. When trans activists accuse GC feminism of being a "cult" it is threads like this that demonstrate how very wrong they are!
TirisfalPumpkin - "I think he’s a populist. He says right wing things if he thinks they’re going to land well, ditto left wing things. His overall position is probably something like ‘outraged centrist’.
Would’ve liked to see BB get really grilled on what is an acceptable gender to identify as. If a two spirit penguin is off the table, what about spacegender, angeligender or one of the various ones that relate to fictional characters or otherkin types? Where do you draw the line? Or is BB just a gatekeeping exclusionary penguinphobe?
Generally I think PM has done things in the past indicative of a lack of ethics and journalistic integrity. That has no bearing on whether he’s allowed to have an opinion and voice it. It’s not 1984."
I agree.
If you want to see Benjamin "I Self-ID as Black" Butterworth squirming as PM grills him about 100 Genders and then "comes out" as a "Two Spirit, Nutrois, Pangender Penguin", this is right up your street! 
"Should There Be a Limit to Gender Identities? | Good Morning Britain" (11 Sept 2019)