4 ms·

I watched this interview the other day. It was infuriating. I mean, you expect today's journalists to be provocative, sure. But this interviewer relentlessly, a

by psyc 9y ago

I watched this interview the other day. It was infuriating. I mean, you expect today's journalists to be provocative, sure. But this interviewer relentlessly, and in the most hostile manner, misrepresented Peterson, put words in his mouth, and made sideways accusations. I don't know who she is, but if she's supposed to be any kind of serious journalist at all, she deserves to be called out for this. Most striking to me was that her tone, body-language, and words all seemed to broadcast this message: "To those at home, my guest is a villain. We all know it. I'm going to get to the bottom of this, get him to confess his crimes, and maybe get some insight into the mind of a bad person." Again, I don't know anything about this interviewer or Britain's channel 4, so I don't know if this sort of thing is just their standard format.

api 9y ago
I agree that the interview is awful, but consider what an interview with an advocate of social justice and equality would be like if it were given by one of many popular alt-right Youtubers. There are some incredibly hot button emotional issues under the surface here. It's very hard for most people to talk about any of this without going nuts.
- psyc 9y ago
  Rather, imagine if it were given by Tucker Carlson. I seriously doubt it would be quite like this. This is just totally unprofessional.
- Retra 9y ago
  It is a professional journalist's job to do just that. Most people can't do heart transplants either, but that's not an argument to be made for protecting a negligent heart surgeon.
- Fricken 9y ago
  I saw the interview yesterday, and my first reaction was similar to most, I found it infuriating. After thinking about it, I'm glad she aligned herself with Peterson's most vitriolic critics, because it gave him a chance to address that vitriol head-on, and he did so successfully. Hopefully it served to draw some of those with polarized or ill-informed impressions of Peterson towards moderation. I'm skeptical the host was actually as vicious as she made herself to be, that may have simply been a role she adopted for the interview.
Turing_Machine 9y ago
Yep. The interviewer's style is something akin to this: Peterson: "Since they are human beings, women are mortal." Interviewer: "So you're saying that all women should be murdered." That is only a slight exaggeration of what she was doing. He would say something, then she would respond with "So you're saying...(some hot-button statement totally unrelated to what he actually said)". I give him a lot of credit for remaining calm through that.
- dennisgorelik 9y ago
  Cathy Newman allowed Peterson to answer to all of her intentional misinterpretations. Peterson clearly enjoyed that intellectually challenging interview.
  - supreme_sublime 9y ago
    "Intellectually challenging" that wasn't intellectually challenging for him in the slightest. Having someone constantly misrepresent you isn't "challenging". Challenging is when someone understands what you are saying, follows your line of logic and arrives at a conclusion you weren't expecting. He simply knew he was interacting with a person who bought into a certain worldview and figured the best way to show her how she was wrong was by being a bit light hearted, but showing he wasn't a pushover either.
  - mal808 9y ago
    Challenging for the interviewer you mean. He didn't break a sweat.
dekhn 9y ago
So, I work in Silicon Valley, I'm pretty open minded, well educated, etc, etc. Over the past 5 years, much of Silicon Valley has been invaded by this kind of behavior. There has long been a bit of it (I went to a liberal arts university, UCSC, about 25 years ago), but it's really exploded. Seeing this kind of misleading behavior, and the excessive message telegraphing, is a commonplace occurrence now. If you dare question it, you risk being fired. The good news is, the last few months, I've started to see more moderate coworkers finally stand up to this type of person and say: "No. You can't keep dominating the social conversation. You're not the majority, your ideas are just one of many, experts are authorities for a reason, and yes, there are systemic problems, but using clickbait to whine about it isn't solving problems".
dennisgorelik 9y ago
Cathy Newman (the journalist) is putting all her efforts to make that interview interesting and to present Jordan Peterson views. That is why she is trying to make it controversial and tries to present most likely misinterpretations of Peterson's position. These misinterpretations allow Peterson clearly state what his position is and what it is not. I think Cathy Newman did a good job with that interview. She could do it even better if she was a little bit less aggressive with interrupting Peterson. She still had to interrupt him though in order to maintain good interview pace (but interrupt a little bit less). Note that most likely Cathy Newman finds Peterson's views on that topic - interesting. That is why she invited him to do that interview and promote his book.
- vixen99 9y ago
  Your view - fair enough but seems to me she gave every indication that for her, Peterson's views were infuriating and initially, an easy target for demolition. The interview was a lousy job thanks to the fixed agenda she brought with her. Newman just couldn't get her head round the 9% pay gap conundrum and ignored JP's explanation which is obvious to anyone who thinks about it.

by psyc 9y ago

api 9y ago

I agree that the interview is awful, but consider what an interview with an advocate of social justice and equality would be like if it were given by one of many popular alt-right Youtubers. There are some incredibly hot button emotional issues under the surface here. It's very hard for most people to talk about any of this without going nuts.

psyc 9y ago
Rather, imagine if it were given by Tucker Carlson. I seriously doubt it would be quite like this. This is just totally unprofessional.
Retra 9y ago
It is a professional journalist's job to do just that. Most people can't do heart transplants either, but that's not an argument to be made for protecting a negligent heart surgeon.
Fricken 9y ago
I saw the interview yesterday, and my first reaction was similar to most, I found it infuriating. After thinking about it, I'm glad she aligned herself with Peterson's most vitriolic critics, because it gave him a chance to address that vitriol head-on, and he did so successfully. Hopefully it served to draw some of those with polarized or ill-informed impressions of Peterson towards moderation. I'm skeptical the host was actually as vicious as she made herself to be, that may have simply been a role she adopted for the interview.

Turing_Machine 9y ago

Yep. The interviewer's style is something akin to this: Peterson: "Since they are human beings, women are mortal." Interviewer: "So you're saying that all women should be murdered." That is only a slight exaggeration of what she was doing. He would say something, then she would respond with "So you're saying...(some hot-button statement totally unrelated to what he actually said)". I give him a lot of credit for remaining calm through that.

dennisgorelik 9y ago
Cathy Newman allowed Peterson to answer to all of her intentional misinterpretations. Peterson clearly enjoyed that intellectually challenging interview.
- supreme_sublime 9y ago
  "Intellectually challenging" that wasn't intellectually challenging for him in the slightest. Having someone constantly misrepresent you isn't "challenging". Challenging is when someone understands what you are saying, follows your line of logic and arrives at a conclusion you weren't expecting. He simply knew he was interacting with a person who bought into a certain worldview and figured the best way to show her how she was wrong was by being a bit light hearted, but showing he wasn't a pushover either.
- mal808 9y ago
  Challenging for the interviewer you mean. He didn't break a sweat.

dekhn 9y ago

So, I work in Silicon Valley, I'm pretty open minded, well educated, etc, etc. Over the past 5 years, much of Silicon Valley has been invaded by this kind of behavior. There has long been a bit of it (I went to a liberal arts university, UCSC, about 25 years ago), but it's really exploded. Seeing this kind of misleading behavior, and the excessive message telegraphing, is a commonplace occurrence now. If you dare question it, you risk being fired. The good news is, the last few months, I've started to see more moderate coworkers finally stand up to this type of person and say: "No. You can't keep dominating the social conversation. You're not the majority, your ideas are just one of many, experts are authorities for a reason, and yes, there are systemic problems, but using clickbait to whine about it isn't solving problems".

dennisgorelik 9y ago

Cathy Newman (the journalist) is putting all her efforts to make that interview interesting and to present Jordan Peterson views. That is why she is trying to make it controversial and tries to present most likely misinterpretations of Peterson's position. These misinterpretations allow Peterson clearly state what his position is and what it is not. I think Cathy Newman did a good job with that interview. She could do it even better if she was a little bit less aggressive with interrupting Peterson. She still had to interrupt him though in order to maintain good interview pace (but interrupt a little bit less). Note that most likely Cathy Newman finds Peterson's views on that topic - interesting. That is why she invited him to do that interview and promote his book.

vixen99 9y ago
Your view - fair enough but seems to me she gave every indication that for her, Peterson's views were infuriating and initially, an easy target for demolition. The interview was a lousy job thanks to the fixed agenda she brought with her. Newman just couldn't get her head round the 9% pay gap conundrum and ignored JP's explanation which is obvious to anyone who thinks about it.