Ironic that an interview about women wanting equality with men should be conducted by a woman called ‘Newman’. Cathy Newman possibly proving Jordan Peterson’s point that aggressiveness, being disagreeable and making a lot of noise will get you attention and promotion possibly to a level someway above your ability. Then again it’s hardly a new thought…the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Channel 4’s response to the slagging [I use that word advisedly] that Newman has received for her abysmal performance is to, not admit the failure and poor performance, but to counter it with shouty accusations of misogyny and hate crimes….[Someone must have a sense of humour…they’ve just uploaded a video of a Peterson lecture….High-functioning depression & how to overcome misery….One for Newman to watch perhaps]…
Such is the scale of threat we @Channel4News are having to get security specialists in to carry out an analysis. I will not hesitate to get the police involved if necessary. What a terrible indictment of the times we live in.
— Ben de Pear (@bendepear) January 19, 2018
The Guardian has of course given Newman and C4 a platform [no comments allowed it seems] to squawk about it all, blaming the ‘alt-right’ [lol…just how do they know from the comments? Apparently it’s de Bots again!] for the abuse…linking other journalists who criticised her to that abuse whilst denying they are doing that…kind of ironic that this is an article about abuse and yet they are clearly setting up Murray, Delingpole and Peterson himself for attacks by the rabid, genuinely misogynist, anti-semitic alt-left [or Corbyn’s Labour Party if you prefer]…..
Channel 4 News has called in security specialists to analyse threats made to presenter Cathy Newman following her interview with a controversial Canadian psychologist who has attracted a following among the “alt-right”.
The combative Channel 4 interview led to praise for Peterson and criticism for Newman on some right-leaning sites. James Delingpole, a Breitbart columnist, said the interview marked a “pivotal victory in the culture wars” and that the “weaknesses of the regressive left have never been more cruelly or damningly expose”. Douglas Murray in the Spectator said: “I don’t think I have ever witnessed an interview that is more catastrophic for the interviewer.”
Newman has faced a wave of abuse and threats online, including on Twitter. There is no suggestion that Peterson, Delingpole or Murray are behind the threats or instigated them.
Newman, rather than address the problems with her interview attacks Murray and hilariously claims to champion free speech….
Newman retweeted De Pear’s posts. In response to Murray’s column – in which he said Newman should get Channel 4 to remove the video from the internet because of how “catastrophic” it was – she said earlier in the week: “Always grateful for advice from Douglas Murray but I won’t be suing or taking out a super-injunction. I thoroughly enjoyed my bout with Jordan Peterson as did hundreds of thousands of our viewers. Viva feminism, viva free speech. Stay tuned Douglas.”
She says she won’t be suing or taking out a super-injunction….well no, because Murray is spot on and she’s over-paid and intellectually under-resourced for her job. However she will be bringing in specialist security and maybe the police. Watch out Douglas, the thought-police are being put on stand-by….free speech obviously only goes so far.
C4’s Ben de Pear [really?] suggest all this abuse is a ‘terrible indictment of the times we live in’…hmmm…well he should read some history and get a grip…it’s actually more an indictment of a pretty terrible interview…and as for that ‘such is the scale of threat’….really? Please tell us more…please describe that threat….even the Guardian doesn’t come up with anything other than ‘a wave of abuse and threats online’….what threats exactly, how many and are they any more than the usual ranting exclamations that surface on many a Youtube video or Twitter?
There are over 42,000 comments on the Youtube video and trawling through a good many it is hard to find any that could be categorised as the all-out hate crimes that C4 claims…most are just laughing at Newman’s incompetence and praising Peterson. Guess that sticks in Newman’s craw a bit…still, no need to call the police in eh? There will of course be abuse but C4/Guardian is deliberately trying to inflate that into a huge story in order to distract from their failures and use it as a stick to beat and demonise right-leaning journalists into silence, smearing them by linking them to the abuse which had nothing to do with them at all.
The worse someone has come up with is ‘Bitch’….used 505 times….damn…snowflake territory…..wonder if the Guardian et al count the abusive comments that say a mention of Thatcher gets or even May, or female Labour MPs under attack from their ‘own party’?
Hey Mike! Does Cathys premeditated, unrelenting, emotional attack on Dr. Peterson count as critical analysis ?
— Thomas Price (@ThomasPrice18) January 18, 2018
Hmmmm…you can search the comments for that video using this site [and others]…
Search in YouTube comments
Certainly Newman is called ‘dumb cunt’, and variations of, many times [not in the hundreds though…and 2 million views of video], hardly unexpected nor unusual for any Youtube video…also searched ‘kill’….most comments seem to suggest they would like to kill themselves not Newman after the video.
We are asked how such abuse can count as ‘critical comment’, well of course it is in its own way, short, pithy and to the point, but Newman and Co don’t seem to like the more polite, fully fleshed out and reasoned arguments against her interview either, such as it was…hence we get the shouty faux outrage about Newman being called names.
Snowflakery and attempts to censor and censure the right-leaning media. Irony again? The tough, aggressive, disagreeable Newman who wants to be a man’s equal canny take it.
The interview was a disaster. Ms Newman should have gone through this experience as a 1st year undergraduate, forced to explain her naive arguments under the whip-smart glare of a skilled academic. The tragedy for her was that she finally got to understand what rigorous academic analysis is like in an unforgiving tv studio. Hopefully she will learn from the experience, and of course she can be comforted that not many people actually watch Channel4 news.
But instead of accepting that cruel fact that she was hopelessly outclassed, the liberal elite is making a defense by using the dubious tactic of “shooting the messenger”. Blow enough smoke around and accuse everyone of hate crimes is the last refuge of the intellectually challenged. Needless to say, there does not appear to have been any actual violence threatened against Ms Newman – why should there be? Violence tends to be the preserve of the left. Remember sinister Marxist and Labour MP John McDonnell suggesting that Esther McVey should be “lynched”, and who can forget silly Madonna threatening to blow up the White House last year.
Chris, the ‘deflection’ technique has been used almost exclusively by and perfected by the left. Andrew Marr had a piece in the Standard yesterday along similar lines. He likened the vitriol and rudeness and incivility to the pre English Civil War commentariat, and we know how that all ended up. Unfortunately, although trying hard to balance the blame, the examples he uses are Jo Cox and Donald Trump – completely and accidentally forgetting ANTIFA, Momentum, Hope not Hate,Black Lives Matter etc etc etc and all the other left wing nutjobs who are REALLY responsible.
I watched all the interview with interest. Peterson is a professional in every respect. He had the correct and honest answer to all Newman’s questions which he delivered in a professional truthful and respectful manner. He was not rude at all. Newman, on the other hand, proved to be an amateur who resorted to pathetic out-of-place responses (verging jibe) as and when she realised she was not succeeding in having any impact upon Peterson’s arguments.
The mail and express have joined the fun so ms Newman might be on the receiving end of more critical comments.
The body language for the half hour was interesting .,ms Newman sitting slightly forward through out which the prof only lend forward once – at The gotcha moment . Sad really when an interview like this attracts so much attention because its one of those few occasions when one of ours doesn’t get shouted down
Bet it won’t happen again any time soon.,
Our Cathy will probably get something named after her in the centenary of female terrorism and the vote .
The interviewer has got an ear-piece in covered by her hair. She it not coming up with her own questions/responses. I believe that the moment she had a synthetic-human malfunction was caused by confusing instructions from the producer/handler (individual or team). Perhaps even shouting instructions to her?
This is the reason interviewers do not seem to listen once they ask a question: they are focussing on the next question being prompted to them by the producer.
West End actors use in-ear prompting these days too.
Having said that – it was the usual low-rent interview of a very intelligent and polite person by a person uninterested in truth but focussed on a bust-up. Quite shameful and I was embarrassed to be British.
Mr Peterson – please accept our apologies; we’re not all like that in the UK.
Prof Peterson’s contention is that to get to the top in a major corporation one has to be very tough. Very tough in a dog eat dog world. Women by and large, because of their natural instinct to empathise (required in this world), would not be able to take it. Cathy Newman “made it” in a lefty feminist sympathising media organisation. In the corporate world, she wouldn’t survive. The aftermath of this interview shows it.
As Prof Peterson stated, why should a man simply roll over and hand the top job to a woman. He wont. He will come after the opposition, all guns blazing. Many women know this, and simply can not take, or dont want it.
By moaning and whingeing, Cathy Newman and Channel4 hope to win by painting Prof Peterson via his supporters, as a bully. Disgusting.
The left are not just congenital liars but violent and cowardly to boot. But then, what can one expect from people who still profess an ideology that killed more human beings then the Nazis.
Very well said NCBBC. There’s a part of me that doesn’t want Peterson to get too embroiled in these petty disputes, after making Newman look a fool the MSM will now use bigger guns to try and take him down. This man is too valuable to lose if he gets bogged down in all the ‘no I didn’t say x’ crap in too many late night chat shows.
imaynotalwaysloveyou
I dont think we need to worry that he will be bogged down. He has many very intelligent supporters among young White men, marginalised by the left. They are itching for a scrap, and will jump in the fray. And these men will not be running to the BBC whining and crying. They are itching to kick ass.
After her interview went “De Pear shaped” I’ll bet most of the violent comments came from her fellow left-wing extremists who were annoyed with her for letting the side down and showing the intellectual paucity of their arguments. She wasn’t even able to shout over him as he just let her show how weak she is and answered with all reasonableness and logic.
Ben de pear seems to be very low profile and unaccountable as the editor of the daily lefty c4 news – they admit their partiality as a badge of honour depriving the taxpayer who pays their wages of fair news coverage .
I don’t watch it very often any more – much like al beeb – but my test used to be the number of adverts when they break . Very often there was just a trailer for another C4 programme – the news not bringing in any extra revenue -relying on the taxpayer to pay the Reverend Snow’s sons’ wages
I can understand aggressive interviewing techniques when politicians or accountable officials are being challenged. But not with someone like Peterson. The interviewer’s style should be designed to draw out the guest in order that the viewer gets a clear sense of their ideas.
What irritated me was the stupidity of Newman’s responses and interruptions. When Peterson would say “x” Newman would reply with “So what you’re really saying is y”. To which Peterson could only respond, “No, no, no.” Peterson’s mentioning of facts or the results of studies would be mistaken by Newman for his personal opinions and his desired state of affairs.
Newman revealed herself to be highly ignorant, unable to follow a train of logical thought, a stranger to critical thinking, and keener on the defence of radical feminist dogma than on the quest for truth.
Cathy So-You’re-Saying-I’m-A-Disagreeable-Old-Cow Newman is now probably being treated, lobster like, by antidepressants. I hope when she comes out of her groggy state she’ll be a good enough sport to accept she didn’t do her homework. At all.
But I suspect it’ll be more victim pleading.
“Newman is now probably being treated, lobster like, by antidepressants.”
Do you mind! I’m not in the least depressed!
I have been patiently waiting for your response since yesterday.
Uh-oh sorry Lobby, I knew the day would come that I’d offend someone on here. All I can say is #LobsterFeelingsMatter !
Lobster – I think he said we share the same biology (nerves or something ) . I ll spare a thought the next time I boil one of your relatives.
Fedup
Thanks for your concern!
imaynotalwaysloveyou
I hope Ms Newman reads your comment. She need educating.
Perhaps she should apply for a distance learning degree program at the Univ of Toronto .
Zel,
Yes there was a lot of that. After watching a half hour interview ‘some might say’(al Beeb speak) that the reason Toady packs it running order with crap is to make sure ‘interviews’ are below 5 minutes and can be cut down if the ‘victim’ is scoring any points against a beeboid .
Some here mentioned that the prof had 4 minutes at the end of the Saturday Toady last week and that it was more of a sneer than an interview.
In fact, her inabilty to follow a line of argument, getting all emotional and speechless. And then incoherent with scorn and then wide ranging random paintballings?
Well-if that didn`t confirm all that The Prof was saying about our sex was largely true. Then what does?
Of all the smart women who would have listened and illuminated his points so both men and women would have learned big things? Newman was shown to be “irrational” “emotional” and “unable to follow a mans thought processes” . Hmm.
Dianne Abbott made up a medical excuse for being thick regarding numbers and maths-wonder what Cathy might come up with? And maybe Jon Snow carries the necessary correctives, be worth seeing how she performs in 25 days time.
Jordan could surely devise the scientific rationale, so we could all learn. Got to be worth an Attenborough-type of observation.
I’m a fair chap, I hope, but it really is getting difficult to keep up with extreme feminist dogma these days. It seems that women will no longer be wearing their pink “pussy” hats to demonstrate against – (note to ed: fill in usual long list of grievances). It seems that bright pink pussies are discriminatory to ladies of colour and ladies who do not have typical female genitalia, in other words a penis.
According to Ms Phoebe Hopp, founder of the Women’s March in Michigan, the pink hat is being dropped because “I don’t feel like it’s unifying”. The headgear was widely worn in the Women’s Marches that greeted the Trump inauguration last year.
Now I am only a chap but surely Channel 4 could step in and organize a competition to find a replacement. Maybe something in a darker shade of pink with a large tassel falling over the nose to represent the penis and two tasteful ribbons down the back representing the male/female scrotum. As I say I am only a chap so I have no dog in this particular fight.
Niqabs would unify them all, I`d have thought.
Maybe a fez for the blokes.
Remember TopGate?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3017316/Does-BBC-boss-really-need-bodyguards-Gear-death-threat-1-000-day-security-bill-single-email-overseas.html
The media are now going full retard again. Never go full retard. Especially again.
Gurning-Munchkin digs even deeper. Goes even less well:
The Lobster Incident
Cathy Newman and the voices in her ear were increasingly upset by the their inability to corner Prof Peterson, and then trash him. He was the enemy of everything, including their explanation of everything wrong with the West- White male patriarchy. So it must be with relish they brought out their Lobster weapon.
Note the arrogant flick with which Ms Newman throw the “Lobster” in Peterson’s face – 26mt.
Peterson smiles “Thats quite a segue” – But he must have thought that Channel4 interrogators had just handed him a fully loaded double barreled shot gun, with safety Off.
From there on, Peterson shows the fallacy of the idea of male patriarchy. So wrong it is unbelievable – 28mt mark. Bang. By this time his face has gone from a pleasant smile to a penetrating “I’m taking no hostages” concentration. Bang.
It must have been unsettling for Ms Newman, with a full confrontational male glare 6 feet from her. I thing Ms Newman must have realised then what the threat of male violence means, even if there is no question of real physical violence.
Its understandable if Ms Newman was upset, and too it is understandable that her male peers rushed to the defence of a female in distress. But their manner of doing so showed the paucity of their defence. They ended up behaving in a manner that indicated not only Ms Newman, but many of her superiors in broadcast journalism, male and female, are payed well above their worth.
*Segue – to make a transition from one thing to another smoothly and without interruption:
Her male peers deserve full marks for trying, but their efforts I have seen have so far ended in disaster all round… for her, them and the MSM in general.
Which is nice.
Which shows that what is required is not upping the already huge salaries of women in the media but to reduce all journo salaries by a factor of ten.
So Humpfree get £65K tops.
James Murphy – 5 hours ago
“So what you’re saying is that Chairman Mao was a trans activist lobster?”
Oops! Didnt want that to happen.
Segue – an abbreviated seagull ( Apologies – the Newman thing was too much fun)
Fedup2
Ha ha ha.
Segue – a winged sea bird?
Its fun alright, but Jordan Peterson has holed the Male Patriarchy ship under the waterline.
Its up to us to see that this divisive ship is unsalvageable.
Of course, ‘liking’ is not endorsing.
A fact that a media estate prone to tarring by associations and inferences may like to ponder as the law of unintended consequences embraces irony.
good spot!!!!
This seems to be spiralling, and not in a healthy direction, and it looks like the usual suspects and their presumed immunity from consequence are driving it…