On January 16, 2018, an English journalist, Catherine Elizabeth Newman, interviewed a Canadian professor of psychology, Jordan Peterson, on Channel 4 News.
Newman attempted to embarrass Peterson by resorting to a rapid-fire interview style. The style consists of asking a nuanced question and then suddenly interrupting the guest in mid-sentence, shifting the focus to a tangential point, and repeating this until the interview is over. This way the guest does not get enough time to give any question a proper answer. Journalists often use this type of tactic against politicians they wish to undermine, hoping that they would accidentally blurt out something controversial or at least appear uninformed.
"Jordan Peterson revealed himself to be a master of clarity and brevity."
This a nasty, desperate tactic, but it can be effective against those who are not fast speakers, use highfalutin jargon, or speak in long sentences. People who talk in this manner are easy targets for predatory journalists who want to disturb their train of thought by simply cutting them off, restating something they said in a silly manner, thus tricking into talking about irrelevancies. Newman certainly gave this her best shot: “You’re saying women aren’t intelligent enough to run top companies?" To her chagrin, the normally verbose professor revealed himself to be a master of clarity and brevity.
When Peterson gave his opinion on some aspects of dysfunctional relationships, Newman asked, "What gives you the right to say that?" Peterson didn't hesitate to reply, "I'm a clinical psychologist." It is not a strong argument, but if a case has to be made in four words, it is difficult to be more dead-on. This game of verbal ping-pong went on for 20 minutes, during which Newman started to look visibly confused and nervous. Eventually, this exchange of words rendered her speechless:
When Peterson gave his opinion on some aspects of dysfunctional relationships, Newman asked, "What gives you the right to say that?" Peterson didn't hesitate to reply, "I'm a clinical psychologist." It is not a strong argument, but if a case has to be made in four words, it is difficult to be more dead-on. This game of verbal ping-pong went on for 20 minutes, during which Newman started to look visibly confused and nervous. Eventually, this exchange of words rendered her speechless:
"Why should your freedom of speech trump a trans person’s right not to be offended?”
“Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive. I mean, look at the conversation we’re having right now. You’re certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth. Why should you have the right to do that? ... ... You’re doing what you should do, which is digging a bit to see what the hell is going on. And that is what you should do. But you’re exercising your freedom of speech to certainly risk offending me, and that’s fine. More power to you, as far as I’m concerned."
Newman was not able to recover from this and her talking points became asininely absurd. At one point she retorted, "let me get this straight, you're saying we should organize our societies along the line of the lobsters." Peterson smiled the smile akin to that of a father listening to a child's nonsense while pursuing thoughts of his own. The interview was over and Cathy Newman, deservedly, became a target of online ridicule around the globe.
Watch the full interview
"Let me get this straight, you're saying we should organize our societies along the line of the lobsters."
Yet this blunder won't likely hurt her career. Channel 4 News, as a face-saving operation, orchestrated a red-herring type of distraction by claiming that Newman has received credible threats against her character whose nature requires involvement from security experts. By invoking misogyny, some journalists have taken this diversion beyond schizophrenic levels of delusion[1].
I believe that Newman has indeed received vitriolic threats. Unfortunately, the world is full of crackpots who are unable to channel their frustrations in a constructive manner and instead send anonymous death threats. Anyone who has the audacity to express their opinions publicly will likely become a recipient of this art form. At the time of writing this, the interview has earned more than 3.8 million views on YouTube, and if even 0,01% of its viewers are crazy enough to directly abuse Newman, she has received 380 threatening letters. It is a sad but statistical reality.
Jordan Peterson himself has been a target of malicious bullying that extended beyond the Internet when presumably a radical left-wing supremacist group started posting hateful posters full of preposterous claims around his neighborhood. The underlying message being, "we know where you live."
All that being said, if Cathy Newman will recover from this unscathed and her core audience refuses to take their blinders off, why is this newsworthy? In the end, she is only a failing journalist and even the undoing of her career would have not changed anything had Channel 4 chosen to terminate her contract. But her case has significance because the journalistic backlash, for the longest time, has not been about manipulating the facts and trying to make a dissident professor look like an alt-right shadow figure. Even radical outlets, such as The Guardian [2], have taken steps toward somewhat sober reporting. The Atlantic [3] took a leap farther and flat-out condemned Newman's abusive tactics. Others have fallen somewhere in the middle [4] and only the most cringe-worthy publications have tried to distort the facts.
"Has a seed of sanity started to sprout?"
Has a seed of sanity started to sprout? Less than six months ago, a Google employee, James Damore, was fired over a memo where he criticized the company's diversity program. Damore based his arguments on evolutionary psychology and scientific research, backing everything up with charts and citations. during the controversy, dozens of experts arose to defend him [5], and agreed that he got the science mostly right. The mainstream media ignored the voices of leading academics, distorted the contents of Damore's memo, put words in his mouth, and disparaged him in ways that were akin to a schoolyard bully giving wedgies to first graders.
Media's treatment of Damore was parasitic and inexcusable—and a huge mistake. Anyone scientifically literate who bothered to read through his memo was able to see that the media was pushing a fictional, anti-intellectual narrative. The memo left plenty of room for disagreement, but even many of those who disliked Damore's proposals also offered words of sympathy for the mistreated underdog. Resentment toward vulturous journalists spread on social media like wildfire.
"Journalists are realizing that it is their job to report the truth—and not to decide what it is."
Yet, somehow, history did not repeat itself. Jordan Peterson seems to prevail against this nonsense that has been for so long driven by political correctness. He still gets a fair amount of criticism, but it is almost like the long-dormant mainstream media community has woken up to the fact that the interview is publicly available on YouTube. Figments of editorial imagination cannot be twisted into public opinion in a world where information is available to everyone. Their deranged bubble is bursting.
Or perhaps they have realized that there is a cheeseburger-loving world leader on the loose who loves to rant about Fake News™. It is in everyone's best interest not to weaponize his empty rhetoric with demonstrable examples. Cathy Newman matters because there is finally a glimmer of hope that journalists and editors alike are beginning to realize the limits of their power and that it is their job to report the truth—and not to decide what it is.
