Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Don’t Feel Sorry for Cathy Newman, She Deserves the Mockery
By now many on Ricochet will have heard about or seen the now infamous video between Channel 4 “journalist” Cathy Newman and the darling of the new right Jordan Peterson. Channel 4 “news” is like Britain’s version of MSNBC except it, in the condescendingly British way, pretend to be fair and impartial. A lie if ever there was one.
Anyway as Jordan Peterson was on a tour of the UK they perhaps felt he would be good for their ratings to invite him on to discuss topical issues. What happened next is the video that is perhaps one of the greatest takedowns of smug liberal feminism that you will ever see this year. Why Channel 4 news agreed to publish the whole video is beyond me. Perhaps they taught their arch-feminist inquisitor would decimate poor Jordan or that his fans would give them some much-needed internet volume. Their news show is least watched of the big UK channels.
Spoiler alert — that didn’t happen. Instead, Cathy Newman was outclassed, outsmarted, and overpowered by a polite, soft-spoken Canadian who answered every acid-laden question she threw at him and was still respectful to her. It becomes clear to even the most sympathetic viewer that the whole interview was a set-up from early on as she tried — more than once — to trick him into saying something “bigoted” or hateful so Peterson would able to be labeled as at best a fool at worst a far-right bigot. Thankfully Jordan with his politeness and straight-talking not only destroyed her arguments but made it so that the interview backfired on her. So much so that the brilliant English conservative journalist Douglas Murray said she should take out a super-injunction on the video.
Its normal under some circumstances now to feel pity for her. But most Americans and those outside Britain should not fall for such pity. Cathy Newman has a history of doing the above stunts to politicians or people she disagrees with politically and launching attacks on those with different opinions to her.
- She repeatedly asked one of Britain’s few openly Christian politicians his opinions on gay sex. This meant he eventually had to resign as leader of his political party.
- She lied about getting kicked out of a Muslim mosque — never happened
- She openly and angrily denounced the Christian (again) MP Jacob Rees Mogg for his opposition to abortion and his stance on gay marriage.
- She openly called for a ban on pro-life vigils outside abortion clinics. (Free speech for pro-choice liberals but not pro-lifers)
- She lied about pro-lifers and stated falsely that they had helped influence mass shooters at abortion clinics. Vile statement altogether.
- She openly and repeatedly argues for feminism (enough said).
- It’s very easy to see her own positions come across in the people she interviews. (Sadly a flaw all too common in “journalists” today)
There are many more things I could add. It’s just that I don’t feel like now. You get the point. One last note: Apparently Newman is supposed to be getting a lot of death threats now, post video. I don’t doubt its true and that threats of death are wrong. But I also don’t doubt that much of the milder criticism she is getting is more than justified. Some of it is also quite funny.
Some of the comments underneath the video are great fun. Read them and enjoy. Oh, and God bless Jordan Peterson. It’s nice to see Canada is producing some excellent people.
This is why people hate journalists. After showing up one of their own, Channel 4 news did this.
Its sole purpose was to make Jordan Peterson look weird. Dishonest. But Peterson still got the last laugh. God bless him..
Published in General
I observed that from leftists many years ago, and it’s why I don’t join in Republicans when they want to “denounce” whatever it is the leftmedia think they should denounce. They will use your denunciation as proof that you were (and perhaps still are) that what you’re trying to separate yourself from through your denunciation. Jordan Peterson is younger than I am, though I think I had already figured it out by the time I was his age.
What a great article. Kudos to The Atlantic for integrity, except perhaps for this part:
The “online attacks” narrative seems to be a deliberate misdirection, as Dr. Peterson explains in his subsequent interview in the Netherlands (#59 above). I wish that Mr. Friedersdorf had been as careful and detailed in discussing these supposed “abhorrent assaults” as he was in evaluating the interview.
I took a quick look at the YouTube comments, and did not see anything particularly objectionable, though some include moderate invective. I could not review them all, as there are over 61,000 comments, and over 3.3 million views, since the video was posted one week ago.
I just cannot finish it. I get dumber every second I spend watching that video. The man is unbelievably kind and patient. She is insufferable, argumentative, and just plain irritating.
In addition to being a professor, he’s also a practicing clinical psychologist. He has almost certainly had some patients who affected him deeply. I would not be surprised if the memory of one of them came to mind.
He is all over the place I can’t possibly listen to it all or remember it all, and the internet being what it is I cannot say whether I’m listening in chronological order. But I also seem to recall him saying more recently that he is against the new pronouns 1) because he’s against compelled speech, and 2) because they represent ideas he doesn’t agree with.
Indeed. Doubt everything. After all, they claim Jordan Peterson is the alt-right. If so, then we need a new category for Richard Spencer. This is part of what I’ve been trying to communicate about the last two years: things have been fluid and changing quickly. At one time it might have been appropriate to place Jordan Peterson in the alt-right along with Milo and Sargon and Gavin McInnes and Lauren Southern. Now? None of those people belong since the term is too tainted by the Richard Spencers of the world.
I choked up a bit myself. It really is sad that it’s this easy and obvious and yet we’ve had so few beacons on our side taking this simple effective argument to the world at large.
On the other hand, as I’ve learned from the Jocko podcast and I agree to be true: take the high ground or the high ground will take you. What is the high ground here? Hard to say. Is it speaking out about threats and ugliness being done in your name – the long truth? Or is it the more elemental idea of whichever position will best serve your specific interest – the short truth?
a) Aren’t most victory dances flippant and humorous?
b) I’m speaking from the point-of-view of research that’s been done into persuasion strategies. One of the best strategies is to get someone to question their assumptions without letting them feel like they’re being criticized personally. Once you’ve done that you either walk away (allowing the questions to percolate in their head) or you diffuse the situation by offering reassurance to the subject (leaving them with positive emotions about you).
At the end of the interview, he had her. She was tongue-tied because she was questioning her assumptions and it was causing cognitive dissonance. Instead of uttering “gotcha”, it would have been better to keep silent (because the awkwardness can increased the persuasion) or to diffuse the situation with something like, “but it’s ok! I’m not offended!”
Like I wrote earlier, however, it’s a very difficult strategy to pull off. It depends on not giving the subject any sort of non sequitur excuse to dismiss your argument. In the cut-and-thrust of a high adrenaline interview the dig at the end is entirely understandable, but when the Alinskyites on the other side will jump at any misstep, the comment was unfortunate.
I thought she didn’t know what multi-variable meant. She wasn’t listening.
Well yeah, exactly. Especially in a jurisdiction like Ontario where there’s no such thing as a private university, any such program boils down to speech compelled by the state.
Sad, and shameful. For me personally. Just like he said in that clip: the world is starving for these specific men (each one of us) to get our acts together then help others around us. Is my act as together as it could be? Am I doing what I can for those around me? I suppose I do ok, but ok isn’t good enough, is it?
Throw in some stories from the Jocko podcast and it’s clear that whatever problems I think I have are almost literally nothing. It’s also clear that whatever accomplishments I think I have are so small in scope and effect that I have no business feeling as complacent as I do.
It’s time to get after it. Why does it take a psychologist and a Navy Seal to communicate this? Where are the priests, the teachers, the artists? Hell, where have I been? Falling asleep.
I don’t watch much sports, but I don’t think that is true in at least half the cases. Some seem to be a case of rubbing salt into the wound. A few seem to be a case of being happy to have won the point. Byron Scott talked about the difference when he described Larry Bird’s “great trash-talking”.
I may be projecting, but to me it was almost, “We’re in this together, trying to make sense of it all and on this point, you are wrong.” But, that’s how I would have meant it. The spirit of liberty is the spirit that is not absolutely certain that it is correct on all points.
I also think it’s important to realize that she was not going to change her mind, nor were her supporters.
She’s used to interviewing politicians, most of whom also wouldn’t know what multi-variable means.
I think that not assuming that she was never going to change her mind was a key to Dr. Peterson’s performance. He wasn’t trying to defeat her, like a political opponent would. He was trying to teach her. He answered her questions as if they were coming from one of his students.
I believe in giving them lots of non sequitur excuses to dismiss my arguments. If they want excuses, I’ll give them material for it. Give them the rope to hang themselves (or show themselves to be irrelevant).
I agree. Now — which would offend her and her supporters more: Being treated as an opponent worthy of the fight, or being treated as a student worthy of being taught?
Neither. The correct answer is: Not seeing Jordan Peterson driven from his job, being banned or shadowbanned from social media, shutting his YouTube channel down and being forced to live under heavy security.
He’s not trying to offend them, but at the same time he’s not afraid of offending them. That’s kinda the point. He’s playing a completely different game than they are.
He’s an effective teacher. That’s what offends them the most.
I don’t think think Peterson did a “victory dance” at the end, Misth. It was more like the Roadrunner saying “Meep meep” when the Coyote has run off the edge of a cliff and has just looked down.
If it had been a Zen koan, he would have bonked her on the head and she would have achieved satori.
Alt-right is everybody who is to the right of the Democratic Party and who isn’t an enthusiastic supporter of the Republican Party. It’s a very big tent.
More than vocabulary, he’s able to explain his positions. It’s that simple. I mean, I’m sure there are more than a few D-Senators who had difficulty explaining the reasoning behind their Friday night votes, and then changing it. It looks like so much Washington nonsense, and nonsense is precisely what Ms. Newman’s part of the conversation was here, or at least it was revealed to be such by Peterson’s responses.
She didn’t have a prayer. He didn’t arrive by accident or adopt the position first then figure out how to defend it, he spent years doing research, observing, and thinking about it. Her only hope of “winning” was provocation and she went back to it again and again, and in that, she didn’t have to defend a position…and then he actually says she doesn’t have to defend any position and it’s fine that she provokes. That, temporarily, disarms her. She discovers (or, rather, is informed) she is not the one in control. If he doesn’t fill the air with “Gotcha,” I’m not sure where it goes. He let her off the hook twice there.
No difficulty at all. “I have my principles. And if you don’t like them, I have others.”
“So you’re saying” that Cathy Newman is an idiot?
@arizonapatriot and @misthiocracy you are right to correct my erroneous characterization of JP’s stance.
My comment was preliminary, and my understanding was more than inaccurately fuzzy. My thoughts and views on JP and the pronoun topic expanded exponentially immediately after I posted that comment.
I am pleased to say I independently arrived at the very adjustments you offered simply by watching one video of JP speaking.
My initial comment was based on recollections from a media characterization I had heard, not from observation of the man himself.
I gladly stand corrected. Would that many others do the same.
Well, Jordan Peterson was saying that Cathy Newman, is, in a classical Jungian sense, possessed by her animus and was engaging in a dominance display and not a true conversation.
Since he understands postmodernism quite well, he understands that whatever the surface appearance, any interaction in a postmodern context is purely about power.
He thinks that his “Gotcha” remark was a mistake. Maybe petty (my interpretation of his tone when talking about it,) and by not being all he is capable of, it lessened the possibility of a true conversation which would elevate both of them.
He is working towards another meeting with Newman, which he hopes might achieve that.
Yeah at first the alt-right was the Snarky young shoot-first part of the right, or at least it was before 11/9, but as of late it Richard Spencer and his ilk have cleansed and owned the term.
And those snarky provocateurs have pretty much abandoned the term for many months now. Things move faster on the internet than I’m used to. Plus, the scale is hard to judge. Milo has only 700k subscribers after all. It’s not like he’s some dominant media force like used to happen before the internet.
I don’t know Southern, and I don’t pay attention to Milo, but I know McInnes disavowed the alt-right after Charlottesville, and Sargon never identified as any type of “right.”