If you want to watch a masterclass in how to deal with Leftist interviewers you need go no further than this, Canadian Professor Jordan Peterson’s handling of his Channel Four interviewer, one Cathy Newman.

Petersen is a top-drawer academic, but more importantly a man of iron integrity and piercing common sense about whom we have written before. It was over his refusal to use of ‘non-binary’ gender pronouns zee, hir and per that he became a more of a household name. So what, you might say. But for a professor employed by the University of Toronto, backed up by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, it constitutes discrimination, and is punishable by law. In taking this public position he ran a very real risk of losing his job, having his licence to practise clinical psychology revoked, research funding withheld and being heavily fined.

He has been in the UK over the last week to talk about his new book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos. Hence the Channel Four interview in which the idiocy of the smug, emotion-led liberal elite that Newman represents was shown up in all its appalling glory against Peterson’s cold and laser-like analytical precision.

It was a veritable masterclass in answering simply and factually and leaving it there. What comes across is Newman’s complete lack of intellectual curiosity – and inability to handle simple factual truth. The most devastating moment (for her) was when Peterson said that the ‘gender pay gap’ wasn’t about gender when you looked at it using multivariate analysis and Newman just ploughed on regardless, falling back on repeating the same tired mantras, as feminists always do.

Newman of course is a notorious equal pay/social justice zealot. Sadly her performance proves her own pay grade is Less Than Zero, or that she is the living proof after her display of dismal analytical ability that Jess Phillips is actually right – we need more women in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics), or at least more sour-faced female Channel 4 presenters.

As Douglas Murray says in his Spectator article about Peterson’s treatment by Britain’s Leftie broadcasting media ‘If I was Channel 4 I would take it down. If I was Cathy Newman I would sue or seek a super-injunction. I don’t think I have ever witnessed an interview that is more catastrophic for the interviewer.’


  1. He was absolutely brilliant and he remained calm, poised and dignified. He was also quite magnanimous towards Cathy Newman as she tried to put words in his mouth, strawman him repeatedly and accuse of him holding views he doesn’t hold. I hope we see more of him over here. We need more academics like Peterson & other public figures to challenge dominant political narratives like feminism.

    • It also cannot be pointed out often enough that its the same Jordan Peterson whom the cultural commissars at Laurier “University” compared to Hitler when, as they thought, privately “re-educating” a postgraduate student for wrongthink.

      They wont go either easily or without a fight.

    • “So what you are saying is….” What a condescending, even contemptuous attitude that oft-repeated phrase showed towards the respectable and intellectually superior subject of her interview!

  2. The Establishment are bemused about why people dont beleive in ‘experts’ any more. The truth is that we dont beleive in people who ‘pose as experts’.
    Cathy Newman’s problem arose when she came up against a real expert who she in her naivety believed was posing as an expert.
    Cathy has a first class degree in English from Oxford. A gold standard in British education. Cathy has been posing as a journalist for several years now.

    • It just goes to show that even a first class degree from Oxford no longer signifies superior critical faculties and intellectual curiosity – just the ability to churn out the required viewpoints.

      • English must be one of the most overrated degree subjects. Those reading modern or ancient languages have to analyse literature just like those reading English, but have to do this in a language which is not their mother tongue – so have an extra level of skill.
        Whatever critical or intellectual skills graduates of English may have, a scientist’s or mathematician’s analytical skills will not figure highly. Perhaps that is why Newman didn’t do very well trying to trip up Peterson.

        • Hasn’t Oxford ecently decided to change its English course ast the behest of a black woman student, because it didn’t have enough ethnic authors being studied?
          So, either the course was as good as it could be, in hwich case the faculty should be sacked for changing it, or it wasn’t good enough, in which case the faculty should be sacked not not improving it before.

  3. She showed that she was like the people Peterson mentioned who need to grow up and stop demonstrating about things they can’t change.

  4. Newman strikes me as a most unpleasant person and admitted as much during the interview. She also kept up the classic leftist’s gambit of putting words into the other person’s mouth in an attempt to discredit them:- “So what you are saying is . . . . “

  5. In debate, if you keep your wits about you, stay focused, never back down, resolve to be always polite, speak the truth – Oxbridge degree or none, never will an SJW best you.

  6. Thank you for posting this. I’d read about the interview but have now viewed it in full and to see someone of such great wisdom forensically take apart Newman’s hysterical claims is a one a wonder to behold.

    Professor Peterson suggested that there are three factors which help people to be successful in an organisation – intelligence, conscientiousness and disagreeableness. I can only discern one of these elements to explain Cathy Newman’s success and it certainly isn’t intelligence.

  7. It certainly was an excellent interview and there were some great bits such as Peterson calling out Newmans hypocrisy on how it was ok for her to insult him despite trying an failing to shame him on offending others; calling out the gender pay gap lie and the danger of left wing ideologues that really are the descendants of Mao. However we’ve got this far and this lunacy is still relatively unchallenged. It doesn’t matter how ridiculous, hypocritical and nonsensical feminism reveals itself to be, it still has so much power to destroy lives and the fabric of society. We still have a very long way to go but at least it’s clear how much it’s despised.

      • By saying there were many factors related to it and that it was too simplistic with the figures by themselves.

        • Do you think it’s acceptable that only 7 FTSE 100 directors are women?

          Do you think the BBC should illegally pay men more than women, as many female presenters are claiming?

          • Yes, because despite notable exceptions women make very poor leaders. Also they are unlikely to find suitable partners when earning so much as women dont date down. You do realise that feminism actually wants women to be lonely and single?

            The men that are paid more in the BBC are much more popular and get the viewing/listening figures. There isnt anyone better than Lineker at football presenting. Humphrys at political interviews and Evans for entertainment. It is discriminatory to pay less talented women as much as more talented men.

            Why do you believe in feminism?

          • You dont though. If you believed in equality then you would accept that some men are better at their jobs and they should be paid more.

          • No you don’t. You want to be superior to men. I don’t believe in feminism and never have and yet I consider myself equal to any member of either SEX. Equal but different.

          • Feminism doesn’t believe in equality. if it did it would be concerned about the disparity with death rates in the workplace, and the inequality of the judicial process.

          • “Yes, because despite notable exceptions women make very poor leaders. ”

            Where is your evidence for this? Any peer-reviewed studies? Or just your own PREJUDICE?

          • Of course seeing the likes of Theresa May, Amber Rudd, Cressida D!ck and plenty of other incompetent women would show a trend of how many women are totally unfit for their posts, but rather than accept that, it can only be due to prejudice because shaming really is the only weapon you have (and the liberal hegemony supporting you too).

          • You aren’t interested in peer reviewed studies. You showed that when you attacked Petersen’s References to the multifaceted aspects of the gender pay gap.

          • All this bold print does nothing to enhance your argument. Rather it draws emphasis to the paucity it embraces. Now cut along, behind the fridge won’t clean itself you know.

          • Mary Raleigh Richardson made an excellent leader of the Women’s Section of the British Union of Fascists. It followed on from her distinguished career in the Suffragettes.

          • If you were only very slightly less intelligent than you are, you would not be able to read and write, and we should be spared the irritation of your contributions here.

          • Might I refer you to some of Professor Jordan’s ectures regarding orderliness versus industriousness.
            And calm down. You’ve started shrieking again.

          • “women dont date down.”

            I earn more than my boyfriend. I am also better educated taller, faster and stronger than him. We are both totally at ease with this. He doesn’t feel threatened by the fact that I am more successful than him, because he is secure in his masculinity. Are you?

          • I think its very unlikely that you will last very long together. You’ll get bored and want someone more masculine and you’ll kick him to the kerb.

            ‘…because he is secure in his masculinity. Are you?’

            He isnt very masculine though is he? I feel far more secure in my masculinity not putting up with any nonsense from entitled women. My partner likes it and I get more respect from other women as there arent many men that outwit them.

          • He was busted as “Fabian Solutions” and “Feminist Solutions” but uses half a hundred other names.

          • Well observed. Though it doesnt take much to dismantle their awful creed and deception is after all the Fabian’s speciality. Thanks.

          • Yes, thanks. You’re still shieking, though. I suspect its a strong indicator of the weakness of your stance and a lack of confidence in it.

          • “The men that are paid more in the BBC are much more popular and get the viewing/listening figures. ”

            That might still be the case because more men have been presenters for longer.

            Now that the BBC is employing more female presenters, women will soon be just as popular as the men.

          • If these women are anything like you, I think we are both agreed that is very unlikely. For some strange reason, people (men and women) dont like unlikable presenters making demands when they are on good six figure salaries.

            Dont you realise that your poisonous ideology doesnt win you fans or friends? Even on left wing websites where there are comments, it is clear that feminism is despised.

          • We will get what those running the BBC think we should get for ideological reasons, not whether they are popular or not.

            This is the power of a state organisation and the authoritarianism of leftism.

          • Exactly. Strong Woman mentioned Sue Barker. She is well liked by the nation and as she has stayed out of this nonsense, her popularity will remain. It really is something women influenced by feminist ideology should observe.

          • “There isnt anyone better than Lineker at football presenting. Humphrys at political interviews and Evans for entertainment. It is discriminatory to pay less talented women as much as more talented men.”

            No, Clare Balding, Sue Barker, Tess Daly, Claudia Winkleman and Mary Berry are all national treasures and loved by pretty much all.

          • Winkleman? Er no.
            Balding? Er no.

            I doubt there is anyone more popular than Barker at presenting tennis so I would expect her to be paid more than any man. That would seem appropriate.

            Tess Daly? I so would!

            Mary Berry? I really wouldnt have a clue as I dont watch cookery programmes.

          • A very wise, strong, noble and capable woman once said to me
            “feminism was invented by a man, to get more work out of women. We work in the home, now they want us working out at as well and bringing home the bacon”

            Could be true!!!

          • There should be absolute equality between genders for numbers of directors of FTSE 100 companies – zero for both men and women.

            There should also be absolute equality between men and women working for the BBC and other big media outlets – zero numbers, no pay.

            Big business and big media are the problem, as is big, remote government. It is not the composition of power hierarchies that is the problem for most people, it is the existence of concentrations of power. Oligopolistic capitalism, giant trans-national NGOs, remote government which only ‘listens’ to big organisations and a totalitarian-inclined managerial class which manipulates and controls the population at large in the service of those at the top of the pyramid is the real problem.

          • Here is what I don’t understand.
            WHY does a position have to be fronted by a woman? or any of the BAME
            The truth is many woman don’t want to do these things.
            If you do, fair enough, and if you’re good enough, got what it takes, are prepared to make any sacrifices then fine, you should have the job as much as any man.
            I can’t believe a Company with its profits in mind would turn down a candidate who is clearly head and shoulders above everyone else, just because the candidate was a woman.
            That goes for the FTSE100.

            Social engineering that’s all it is, and it’s dangerous, and unnatural.

  8. Peterson of course mentions that he’s received 25000 letters since June from people thanking him for his advice and, as he puts it, “saving them from the brink”. Let’s hope that his visit to the UK and this interview (currently trending at 13th most popular on youtube) might reach out to some of the people featured in Damian Green’s new Channel 4 documentary on white working class men.

    • I look forward to a adocumentary on the deracinated middle class cosmopolitans who populate the political class.

    • I didn’t see this documentary but considering it was about the ultimate bete noir (should that be bete blanc?!?) of the MSM, namely ‘white working class males’I think I can guess the tone of the programme.

  9. I thought Cathy Newman came across better overall. Remember, she wasn’t trying to debate Peterson, but rather interview him; and that involved playing devil’s advocate.

    Peterson is an articulate person, but Ms Newman effectively countered all his arguments in the end.

    • Yes, Reminds me of the recent Ashes against Australia,
      I thought England came across better overall. Remember our team wasn’t trying to defeat Australia, but rather engage with them; and that involved playing a lot of really bad cricket.
      Australia are a fantastic team, but England effectively countered all their play by spending much less time at the crease.

    • Are you insane? She made herself look an absolute fool and countered nothing because she had nothing with which to counter him. It was almost pitiful to watch. I think you must be what is called a s**t poster because no one with a brain larger than a pea could possibly imagine that Newman got the better of Dr.Peterson at any point.

    • If you honestly think that Cathy Newman came across better than Jordan Peterson, all I can say is this. There’s this place called Specsavers. And I believe they do hearing aids too.

    • Still shieking. You’re trying to convince yourself you’re right, aren’t you? ‘Coz you know your argument is weak.

    • Then please may we count on a return match. I’m sure Mx. Newperson will be only too pleased for the opportunity, following her ‘triumph’.

  10. Why do some men feel so threatened by female equality?

    My own theory is that such men have tony, inadequate penises and feel bitter towards women who have mocked them for their lack of sexual prowess and/or refused to date them because of their small pr*cks.

    • With your notorious potty mouth, many here would require
      more evidence than a cut ‘n paste JPEG of Virginia Woolf, that you are not one
      of the tiny, inadequate, etc. of whom you speak.

    • Isnt mocking someone for something they can do nothing about extremely discriminatory and hateful?

      You very much expose the reasoning why women historically were not allowed a voice and do a disservice to all the smart and more agreeable women that accordingly make better partners. This is why many men are threatened by female equality as women indoctrinated by feminist ideology are hypocritically hateful and men just dont want anything to do with you.

    • Thinking about it, I think many women share the same idea. It really shows how feral they have made women that they are encouraged to go for men with bigger pen!ses and how feminism has destroyed how a mans provisioning was a big factor in what a woman would choose in a partner. This really is Feminism 101 and how they turn women into promiscuous sl*ts encouraged to look for a partner based on performance rather than character.

    • Seriously, is that the best you can do? (My ‘shamebingo’ card of cliché feminist insults is filling up nicely though. Keep ’em coming!)

    • ‘refused to date them because of their small pr*cks’? You mean that the willy inspection comes BEFORE the date? How does that work? Man: ‘Would you like to go for a drink?’ Woman: ‘Maybe. Show me your willy and I will let you know.’ Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

    • That inane comment demonstrates why people like you have zero credibility on sites like CW. You’d be screaming for the police if a man started criticising women’s body-parts online.

    • It would seem to me that much of women’s equality has come by trying to destroy masculinity and by denigrating men. Your comments are disgusting. You are a disgrace. Your ‘own theory’ is no theory at all just the rantings of a unintelligent, vengeful, embittered and spiteful female who clearly lacks even the most basic decency.

  11. He was very calm, even though I don’t agree with all he says. Rather like Seb Gorka can be. But to say “I don’t think I have ever witnessed an interview that is more catastrophic for the interviewer” is the usual Murray hogwash…he’s obviously never seen Kay Burley in action. (*I was going to add Sean Hannity, but I’m not sure they let him interview any more?)

  12. Peterson spoke only in generalisations.

    He fails to understand that women and men are all different. You can’t make generalisations about any one gender.

    • You certainly do make generalisations that men threatened by feminism all have small pen!ses.

      More remarkable that you dont even see your own hypocrisy and how it invalidates your point.

    • Yes, professor. Quite right. A clinical professor (a real one, unlike you) doesn’t know that mean and women are individuals. Killer point. We admit defeat.

    • My guess is that he understands a lot more than you, or me for that matter. Peterson is a high-grade brainy bloke who the left would do well to listen to. Instead, like you, and Newman, they metaphorically stick their fingers in the ears and sing la-li-la-li-la.

    • 1/Men are all of different height from each other. Women are all of different height from each other. The differences between one individual and another may in some cases be measurable only with accurate and sensitive scientific instruments, but it will be there.

      2/ Men are on average taller than women. That is a generalisation about ‘gender’ (sex). It is based on the mean height of each sex, i.e. the height of members of each sex in a population divided by the number of individuals of that sex in a population. It does not mean that there are no tall women or short men.

      The functionally innumerate cannot cope with the truth in paragraph (1) being entirely compatible with that in para (2). If you say to them that men are generally taller than women, you will usually get one of two responses:

      (i) “But Grace Jones and Maria Sharapova are both much taller than any man I know!”
      (Probably true but these women are not typical, any more than a 2.29 metre/7′ 6″ man would be typical of a man);
      (ii) “I’m much taller than my boyfriend!”
      (again this may be true but it doesn’t alter the generalisation – it’s about a couple of individuals not millions of people).

    • He didn’t. He was quite specific about the sexes. He is an unbelievably well informed man. If anyone was making generalisations it was the appalling Newman who kept trying to put words in his mouth. She quite clearly was not up to the job of interviewing Dr. Peterson but thought she could just browbeat him into backing down.from his stance. I have learned a good deal from watching and listening to him over the past few months. Open your ears so called Strong Woman and maybe you could learn something too. Even if you do not agree with him he is a remarkable man who is worthy of our admiration and respect.

    • You’re not actually a woman, are you? You’re a Men’s Rights Activist planting evidence to make Feminism look even more ridiculous than it actually is.

  13. Any else surprised at the length of the interview? 30 minutes is rare on British news programmes. And it flashed by like 15 minutes.

    I really wish there was more of this on TV. I would be tempted to watch more of it.

    • The interview shown on the TV was an edit, but C4 News does, to their credit, post the long-form interview on their YouTube channel. I don’t particularly agree with a lot of their stances but they at least don’t try to censor or curtail everything they don’t like as the BBC does.

  14. The Jordan Peterson video was trending at #3 and above on YouTube
    last night and with 1.5 million views, is still in the top trends today. This
    means that the content reaches a far higher audience than might be typically
    expected. I do recommend the comment section, 34,000 and rising! The positive
    response to Professor Peterson’s masterclass in deconstructing social justice
    warrior diatribes will surely warm your heart on a cold winter’s day!

    • I’m sure Channel 4 News (once, my favourite source of news) and Mx. Newman will be very pleased about the new viewers its piece has received. I definitely am.

  15. It is clear that Cathy Newman made a big mistake in deciding to interview Peterson. She didn’t do her homework on him, and thought she could browbeat him with the usual feminist claptrap that works so well with others of far less intellectual capacity. But Peterson knows his stuff and made Newman look exactly what she is: a ranting ideologue who cannot stand her ground in a proper debate where facts count. How good to see: a posturing idiot exposed in all her mental inadequacy. One down, a thousand more to go.

    • Homework? What homework does La Newman need when it is self-evident to her that Professor Peterson is a sexist, transphobic, anti-Chinese, lobster hating fool! His 30 year career inclinical psychology has been nothing more than a precursor to being sacrificed by her on the Channel Four News altar of left-wing identity politics. How will he ever recover from such a public evisceration?

    • It’s easy to see why CH4 News likes to “interview” people like Diane Abbott and Lily Allen. Bettter to talk to another raving extreme-left feminist or somebody who is so intellectually-challenged they can be simply prompted to say the right things.

  16. This interview was a disaster, and it was largely the fault of Channel 4. When you are interviewing a specialist of the calibre of a prominent academic a set of questions will be pre prepared and a lay person will be a great interviewer to guide the academic through the simple questions which the audience want to know about.
    So if this is a scientist with a complicated specialism it’s a good thing to have an ‘ignorant’ interviewer as they will ask the questions needed to explain a complex subject, and stop an academic wandering off into territory which is too rarefied.
    This did not happen in this interview.

    It is clear from the start of this interview that Newman hates her guest with the visceral passion the Fascists have for those who disagree with them. She starts out in an aggressive argumentative position with the pre prepared questions but then because she’s up against someone who have very deep knowledge of his subject, can refute the very premise on which the left wing biased questions are based. As a result she doesn’t know what to respond with other than to simply keep repeating the question. She is not prepared to lead the academic through his thought train to educate the audience, because both she and Channel 4 don’t agree with that from the outset.

    There are several points in the interview when Newman outs herself as a least a far leftist if not a communist. She talks about equality of outcome being desirable, which is code for a Communist state. She talks about the necessary restriction of free speech and free thought in order not to offend, and when it is pointed out to her that the thinking of the groups she supports is Maoist, she still continues to support them.

    The fact that this video is doing the rounds on social media and web pages like this is a testament as to what a disaster it was to Newman who made herself look like a pig ignorant aggressive bully, unable to accept diversity of thought – an accurate description.

    Alas it will change nothing other than to harden the resolve of the University to rid itself of this troublesome professor.

  17. The interview was probably the most engaging television I’ve ever seen. Peterson was always calm, courteous, and stuck to the actual facts. He was not at all intimidated by the arch man-hater interviewing him. The “gotcha” moment was an eye-opener. Feminist supremo Cathy Newman finally running out of hot air and falling flat on her face. I almost felt sorry for her, but why feel sorry for someone who peddles a culture of discontent and victimhood based on falsehoods and small-mindedness?

  18. Newman never attempted to ‘interview’ her guest. She set out with one aim – that being to attempt to show up her male guest at the expense of her aggressive agenda.

    • And fell flat on her face.
      A spite ridden harpy, and probably one of those who does like to be able to command, bully and emasculate the man in her life. A point the good Professor made at the beginning regarding so many women’s unhappiness.

  19. It is such as this Prof. that can help turn the tide. Some people, and I’m thinking of today’s generation of “Uni” students, will in all likelihood never have seen or heard such a defiance.
    We need men like him in the world of academia, journalism, and cultural world, to stand defiant, and be rebellious. It could catch on!!
    Of course women can and should follow suit.

    I was quite taken by Newman’s outrage at the Professor likening certain types to Communists or Mao’ists. Accusing him of likening them to an ideology that murdered millions in its name (glad you recognise that Newman).
    However, what is the first line of defence such as her and the majority of the establishment use when they come up against someone who disagrees with mass immigration, as just an example.
    They hysterically liken them to Nazis, an ideology that murdered millions.
    So I can’t see her point there. They’ve had it their way for too long, with no one hitting back, it’s really going to sting once more are emboldened too.

    • Astonishing, isn’t it. The ‘Right-On’ rage when they try to claim that their ideological totalitarianism is being compared with Mao. But are only too ready to equate a man’s hand brushing a woman’s knee with the worst rape and Weinstein’s alleged behaviour.

  20. This was the quote from Newman that trumped all others:

    “Why should your right to freedom of speech trump a trans persons right not to be offended”?

    • The ‘right’ not to be offended is something which can be stretched to infinity and is therefore a potent weapon for those who wish to impose totalitarian control.

      There is probably someone, somewhere, who is offended by one or more of the following phrases. I don’t for a minute think that the groups in brackets would be offended in the slightest by the phrases, but amoral opportunists in academe, the media and politics would invoke ‘offence’ in their name as a reason for censorship and condemnation:

      1/ ‘Right-hand person’ (discriminates against left-handed people);
      2/ ‘A pint of Bitter and a packet of pork scratchings’ (followers of Islam and Judaism);
      3/ ‘Fried egg’ (followers of Sikhism);
      4/ ‘Sacred cow’ (Hindus).

      • The ‘right’ not to be offended is a leftist device for cumulatively abolishing free speech and, in the end, Western Civilisation.

    • Well I loved the response. Peterson looking serious talking about his being offended by her. She looked shocked, he smiled; she was all a flutter. He so neatly turned her comment on her head, doesn’t he have a right not to be offended by her ? he asked as she dug her own hole. And then he drove right in of course she has a right to “offend” by probing his answers, and isn’t that how we often find things out. Like a lion with its prey.

  21. Just as note here. Although there are only two people in the camera shot, don’t forget that there is an entire crew who have pre prepared these questions for her, and she also has an ear piece where the studio crew can feed her questions if she needs them. The moment when she pauses is almost certainly her listening to the studio crew giving her advice on where she might go next.

    This is not a one on one interview, but one against several. Don’t just blame Newman, blame the entire backroom for this because they are all in on it.

    • I agree that the culture of the newsroom will be a shared one, but the prime responsibility rests with Newman. I suspect the only advice she got over the earpiece was the one telling her to end the interview, which she very abruptly did.

      A certain amount of credit is due to Channel 4 News to put out without editing, a video that has caused them serious reputational damage, currently with 1.5m views.

      • I thought C4 gave Peterson the opportunity to put over his point of view very clearly: isn’t that what TV interviewers are supposed to do? 🙂

        • What, by not letting him complete his sentences before trying to completely re-word and misrepresent what he was saying? It wasn’t an interview – it was a repeated attempt to “Gotcha!” him.

    • Excellent point and demonstrates how well Peterson behaved and answered the questions. I noticed how often he was prepared to pause for reflection on the question before answering… something that many interviewees are not prepared to do particularly on tv where they often feel “badgered” by the interviewer

  22. I thoroughly enjoyed that interview. To put it in simple terms, the interviewer came over as being not only pre-programmed into certain bigoted ways of thinking but also, of very limited intelligence. She couldn’t cope with the widely used statistical tool of multi-variate analysis. This is typical of the extremely narrow, restricted range of abilities these people possess. They have learnt, not to be able to think and analyse, but only to emote and run like trains along narrowly defined political tracks. Faced with logical, informed and well structured arguments they merely resort to hateful slogans and often insulting name calling. They don’t like reality one little bit !

  23. Many of the suffragettes were lesbians. Some women are born with more testosterone than others, and tend to be the ones dragging other women along with their ‘feminist’ agenda, which isn’t feminine at all actually, but very masculine.

  24. So you’re saying Cathy Newman, as a woman, shouldn’t be on television?

    I’m in training to be a CH4 “journalist”… as you can see, it’s going rather well.

    • No-one is saying that women shouldn’t be on television. That is just silly. Incompetent women interviewers/journalits should not. be let loose in a studio..Nor incompetent men for that matter.

      • I know… You’ve missed my point. Cathy’s only tactic was completely misrepresenting Peterson’s views with the weasel remark, “So you’re saying…”

        • Don’t worry, I got the joke and without explanation too! But then I’d actually watched the video of the interview in question before commenting.:)

          Someone made a vid counting the number of times that Newman tried to bait Peterson or put words into his mouth in order to “Gotcha!” him – it was 1.9 per minute for half an hour. That woman is ridiculous.

      • Politically biased interviewers / journalists who appear to be unaware of their biases should not be in television.

        • I think she’s entirely aware of her bias, indeed, revels in it, but is so convinced of her superior ability and her cause that she believes she’ll overcome any opposing view and show her opponents to be fools.

    • A markedly silly overreaction there from you I’d say.
      Please read the words used by ‘ginger sensation’, rather than projecting your fears onto his words. He says that it is competence not sex which must be the criterion judging whether someone should be in that role, or not. What fair minded person could possibly disagree with that !

      • You’ve missed my point. I was using the same tactic as Cathy Newman. Did you watch the actual interview?

        • If that’s a tactic a suggest you find others. It just confirms the public perception that TV journalists are not seeking truth but merely sensation and a simplistic division into adversarial camps, an approach which smacks of immaturity, both intellectually and morally.
          Yes I saw the whole interview.

      • The interview is a roadcrash. Someone who thought she was intelligent meets someone who is rather more intelligent and ends up being blasted to offal in the ensuing collision.

        • Exactly. I’m not a journalist but it strikes me that the only way they should interview genuinely top experts in scientific or other specialised fields is to remember that you are not an expert and treat the interviewee accordingly.

          • You’re interviewing either an expert or someone who has studied the subject in depth. Ask them questions. Don’t preach at them.

          • On target. But the correct approach you outline requires the interviewer to be professionally realistic about their abilities. In her case she tripped herself up by her own arrogance, and now she looks a fool. The old saying “pride goes before a fall” applies.

      • I used to love Channel 4 News and regarded it as my prime source for years. Then, some years ago, it stopped doing news and became a propaganda news magazine programme that selected items of news to bolster its SJW, dare I say, Crusade.

  25. If you are sure of your facts and use words with precision then it is very difficult for the progressive to make headway. Newman fell into so many traps it was ludicrous.
    President Trump uses somewhat similar tactics from another perspective . Say something which is guaranteed to cause a progressive to be outraged then wait for that and allow the res t of us to see that the outrage is purely emotional and fact free.
    For instance the travel ban and the latest about certain less than orderly countries.

    • Peterson, by using words precisely, could remember what he said. 🙂
      In fact, Peterson’s objection to being forced to use certain pronouns is because it would hinder the public’s ability to formulate the problems that needed to be solved, as the meaning of words would become fuzzy.

  26. When I was younger and Britain was another country, if someone said or did something rather offensive! People would shrug and say, ‘Well, it’s a free country’,

    It’s many years since I heard that phrase uttered. People sense that we are no longer a free country,

  27. I’m a sometime journalist and have been for a couple of decades, occasionally flitting out for the promised land of PR and back in again, generally following the money or what I think is an interesting client or appealing work.

    And what happens is that, the more important the journalist, the more they’re likely to see themselves as little tin gods. When you have the raw material for a story, namely the thing that has happened and sundry interviews with various people expressing opinions about the thing, you can cut it up in any way you see fit. Want it to be positive? We can do that. Want it to be negative? We can do that as well. And so on ad infinitum.

    Newman is just the same. She has her strengths as a journalist, but springs to a predictable side in each and every story. There’s no sense that she has paused to reflect where right or reason might lie, but arrives at the arena by a well-trodden path of unquestioned rectitude as evidenced here. I think the trans movement are a cult who are spearheading a disastrous convolution of language which is essentially the same as the scene in 1984 where O’Brien tells Winston Smith that he’s holding up not how many fingers he sees, but how many the Party says he sees.

    And now the people who are nominally supposed to ask questions are revealing that they are indeed these minor gods, so consumed with their own rectitude, so anxious to fit the world to their way of seeing that they are utterly and wholly useless in their role.

    • I think Peterson holds the same views which I do, that there are a few people in a trans lobby who are out of control operating in a way similar to the Maoist regime in China, however as he does then go on to state, they are not indicative nor representative of the vast majority of Trans people.

      If you ascribe the attributes of a small noisy group of people to all others in that group then inevitably you will get it wrong.
      The Left continually does this by attempting to pigeonhole entire groups of people so it can effect some measure of control over them, and it has a peculiar fake language to do this. It calls them ‘communities’ when they are not. In fact the only thing the gay ‘community’ has in common is that they are Gay, same thing with the Muslim ‘Community’. They don’t believe in the same things, don’t all have the same aspirations and are more representative of a larger society than the box they have been stuffed in. Can’t control them like that though, so they are dealt with en masse with a big brother knows what’s best for you attitude.

      • The trans lobby is an evangelical cult who should be regarded with the same suspicion as one feels for advocates of anorexia. They are mentally ill and are demanding that society fit in with their mental illness. Why else would a man with heavy five o’clock shadow and yet dressed like Dame Edna Everage come into the toilets at Waterloo recently?

        • Interesting the way you are so hate filled for the men moving to women, which you clearly see as some kind of a betrayal of the superior sex. Interesting too that you don’t seem as exorcised by women transitioning to men which you also appear to see as making a promotional move to a superior position and coming to bat for your side !

          Both of then are trans, but for all you know they might be further to the right than you are, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the trans lobby.

          Prince George and Noel Coward were both arrested after parading around Mayfair in drag back in the 30s there’s nothing new about it, why get so wound up about it?

          • Stapling a hydraulic sausage to yourself is equally bizarre. And the bloke walking in to the men’s in bad drag was taking some risks with his personal safety.

  28. If Cathy Newman had the slightest shred of pride or self-respect, she would have already resigned from her position at Channel 4, vowing never to show her face in pubic again. She is a disgrace to her profession. If she doesn’t resign, then Channel 4 ought to sack her. In fact, Channel 4 ought to fire all its journalists and re-constitute Channel 4 News starting from scratch with a blank slate.
    The Channel 4 executive board really ought get switched on and recognise that this ignominious fiasco is a massive wake-up call. Channel 4 news output is nothing short of diabolical; and widely held in such poor regard that the entire Channel 4 network is tainted by association.

          • You really don’t get it, do you Bazza?
            This is not merely one isolated example a journalist messing up.
            So-called ‘journalists’, such as Cathy Newman, have been doing this for years and getting away with it.
            Finally, one them gets caught red-handed by going up against an intelligent man who who refuses the straw man and won’t tolerate being projected upon.
            Peterson could have been much harsher against Cathy Newman if he had chosen to be. You must have noticed that Peterson, who is a gentleman, was showing considerable restraint. Restraint that no Leftist journalist has ever shown towards a Conservative interviewee.
            Cathy Newman ought to show that she has some tiny measure of integrity by at least offering her resignation to her superiors.
            This fiasco of an interview needs to be a wake-up call for journalism in this country. If this is not considered to be a very serious warning, then things are going to get a lot worse as regards sloppy journalism and fake news.
            This country is closer to being ungovernable than anyone wishes to acknowledge. We are dangerously close to civil war.
            The media need to acknowledge that they are in large part responsible for creating the divided society of 2018. If the media had been more responsible before, during and after Brexit, things would never have gotten this bad.

          • We’re a long, long way from civil war, except perhaps in your head. Anyone who says otherwise is being very, very melodramatic. We’re about a year away from a compromise which disappoints everyone and angers nobody except fora few fringe nutcases.

          • You appear to have no idea how angry some Leavers are over the ongoing Brexit betrayal.
            You also appear to have no idea of the extent to which some Remainers are being stirred up to thwart Brexit.
            Take a step back and look at the big picture…
            All the mainstream media has done since the referendum is to rub everyone’s face in dirt.
            We are being deliberately forced down a road of increasing division in order to punish Britain for voting the wrong way.
            The EU Globalists are eagerly awaiting a Civil War, since this will accelerate their imposition of authoritarian hegemony.

          • You would be surprised, Barry. Many of the younger leavers never bothered to engage in mainstream politics. They have formed Nationalist cells and they are preparing to defend British soil from EU Globalist traitors.
            This country is in a fragile state and it would really help if the mainstream media would stop fomenting discord by deliberately antagonising everyone.

          • Where do you live, Bazza? Somewhere metropolitan? London, maybe? You would do well to get out to the Shires and find out what people who live beyond the M4 corridor actually think. You might even gain some interesting material to write about in your ‘sometime journalism’…?

          • London, Godfrey. Just. And if you think the shires are full of young nationalists organised into ‘cells,’ you’re nuts.

          • It is unwise to wake the latent nationalism of the shire English. Which is why I deplore the remainers attempts to derail Brexit.
            There are many young men with very strong views on what sort of country they want to bring up their children in ..

      • It’s big news for Channel 4 News. How many people usually watch it? I can’t find the numbers easily, but it’s not in Channel 4’s top 30 watched programmes so we can safely say less than 0.5 million. The interview with Jordan Peterson now has 2 million views on YouTube, which would make it the 8th most watched Channel 4 programme in the last week. That says something about the relevance of terrestrial TV against the internet and that there is an appetite to see the lazy, ignorant prejudices of the PC elite being intelligently shredded.

      • No, it itsn’t. This one ‘journalist’ gets to present the news to the nation most nights, and gets to write columns in two national newspapers. She makes no pretence of her bias and is open about her crusading attempts to influence.

        Would that the country could get half the same amount of coverage for the unbiased Professor Peterson presenting fully researched evidence.

    • Petersen answered as an academic, giving dispassionate, evidence supported testimony.

      Newman’s performance was that of an emotionally driven leftist ideologue.

      No contest.

    • She is there to supply CH4’s representation on life … not her own … though this is probably her own view as well otherwise she would not have been employed in the role. Sacking her will not change the narrative. I suspect the seeds of doubt in her (and CH4’s) arguments have been sown. However if she wants to keep her job (very well paid I do not doubt) she will not be able to publicly advertise her new found doubts

      • How can she carry on as if nothing has happened?
        Surely, she must have some measure of self-respect, however slender?
        The cognitive dissonance crashing around in her head must be totally off the scale.

  29. we need more women in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics),

    That is the biggest joke played on women. Except for computers, there is no shortage of STEM workers…. I’ve been in S for 30 years and all the good paying jobs are going overseas. I know S PhDs that are waiting tables. The jobs are not there. So the more women that go into the field, the more that won’t find jobs. It isn’t misogyny, it is economc fact.

  30. It’s almost as if a Womans qualifications, her credentials if you like, do not denote how clever she is.


  31. Jordan Peterson was fantastic to watch. I noticed that when Newman was stuck for a clever response she would resort to accusing Peterson of simply provoking and stirring up divisions, whipping up peoples anger etc. Watching Newman’s reactions I got the impression that this is possibly a woman who has probably been told that she was a winner for most of her educated life (part of that self-esteem movement that our education system appears to have adopted where there are no losers only winners) – and everything she ever believed-in was encouraged and never questioned or shown to be wrong – now here comes this brilliant clever man whom she probably expected to expose as some raving right-wing nut-job and run rings him with her social justice warrior act and he tells her in no uncertain terms that everything she has ever believed-in or was taught to believe as true fact of western culture and society was in fact false and that she is on the losing side of the socio-political argument – he even provides examples and evidence to back up his arguments – yet looking at Newman’s shocked expressions she doesn’t appear to accept what he has just told her – that regardless of her belief’s about gender pay gap and what-not – the empirical evidence doesn’t back up her arguments – and so she then reverts to the usual lazy leftist response – mud-slinging.

    I particularly enjoyed the part when Newman was stuck for a reply to Peterson’s response about freedom of speech trumping radical Trans-activists – he is absolutely spot on – the philosophy that is guiding their utterances is the same philosophy of tyrants – great stuff.

  32. Cathy ‘ushered out of the mosque’ Newman should forever be associated with her tweet about being ‘ushered out of the mosque’ when she went into one on a visit-religious-establishments open day..
    Later she claimed it was the wrong one – she had been intending to visit one that was on an ‘open day’ and the one she went into wasn’t.

  33. Here are two more reasons why women are earning (note the subtle difference between paid & earn) less than men.


    Women just don’t start business at the same rate as men, so they never build up the equity in shares which a man can through his enterprise.

    It would appear that it is currently more tax efficient to receive the profits of a business through wages rather than share dividend, and so we see the highest earning woman Denis Coates who has a majority stake in Bet 365 being paid a salary of £199 million last year. Coates owns 50.01% her brother the other shares who presumably received a similar amount.

    It doesn’t take many salaries like this to skew the earnings ratio and yet they are not really ‘salaries’ as such, and no one without massive share ownership would expect to receive that much.

  34. A good journalist tries to get at the truth by questioning people. A good journalist will never be stuck for words.Newman ran out of words because she was not being a journalist – she was using her platform to try to advance an agenda.

    She can call herself a feminist, and that is indeed exactly what she is. But she has no business calling herself a journalist, much less an independent one.

  35. Peterson has decades of clinical experience interacting with confused people. Consequently, he was prepared to interact with Newman. Feminists are required to accept many beliefs about human psychology that are either already known to be false or are implausible. This cripples them when they venture into the domain of reasoned discourse.

  36. Peterson is a good communicator in a refreshing style and of that superficially seductive persuasiveness which the tribal imperative tends to seek out.
    Whatever his ideology, he is entertaining and generally raises the standard of discussion in a way which others would do well to note. He advocates (multivariate) analysis which is not in vogue within Western popular culture.
    Newman was a little out-prepared and (by her agenda) missed asking the simple question ‘should any 2 people of identical experience, skills and qualification ever be paid differently within the same organisation?’ – to which the answer would presumably have been a ‘no’ – whereupon we could have gone on to consider the weather forecast.
    I haven’t seen enough about Peterson or his output to know if he seeks, deserves, or even appreciates the political /cultural spin he seems to attract, but he might do well to clarify any intended disconnect between his thoughts and their ironic appropriation by certain groups which identify toward the extremes.

  37. So, what you’re basically saying is that Women are all utterly pathetic creatures who should not be allowed to work or do anything other than clean ?

Comments are closed.