Cathy Newman stumped by Jordan Peterson

[deadpan]

This twitter post by Sall Grover shows Cathy Newman interview Jordan Peterson on Channel 4 news.
She's challenging him about his views on trans people and asks if he cares about how his right to free speech could offend anyone.
I'm no fan of Peterson but his reply is fantastic and completely stumps Cathy Newman.

https://x.com/salltweets/status/2027540464191287329?s=20

It was a wake up call for many about how intellectually bankrupt many BBC and media types were, and had been for a long time. It was suddenly impossible to not see that an interviewer who had been widely considered an educated, intelligent feminist was not only completely out of her depth, but tried to really dishonestly and deliberately "misinterpret" the interviewee.

There were a lot of people who suddenly had their eyes opened that there was a problem in the left media.

Unfortunately Cathy Newman made a dog's dinner of that interview. He ran rings around her

I get the impression this isn't a hard task.

It is not so much a free speech issue as a 'truth speak' issue.

Nobody should be compelled to utter manipulated untruths - certainly not at a population level. What people say to their friends and family is between them - but you cannot compel a whole population into validating an individual's personal feelings about themselves.

Cathy Newman betrays a lack of critical thought as do many when it comes to this issue.

And what is your opinion of Cathy Newman?

Personally have always thought she was only in place because a woman was required to take over from Jon Snow. She's obviously bright and educated but that is not the same as being able to think independently and critically.

Funny how the brain plays tricks on you

I thought it was long before 2018!

I remember talking about it on here. I thought he was excellent on the gender pay gap as well.

There were a few people on here who basically told me off and just said "I'm not listening to Jordan Peterson".

absolutely no sense of playing the ball and not the man. I find him very difficult to listen to so I am hardly an expert

But he does make some good points - of course I don't agree with him all the time, quite rarely in fact.

But these points were very good. Also, I haven't read the book but petting a cat in the street seemed like very good advice - I'm not even joking, it's particularly valid considering how many people are just losing humanity (or have lost humanity already over the years).

it's going back quite a way now, this loss of ability to listen to opposing points of view. And here we are. It's very sad.

at the time, I remember thinking that Cathy Newman had been given a brief that she probably didn't believe in. Data in aggregate is such a questionable debating tool.

Now in 2026, I don't know what she believes and what she doesn't - but she's clearly still happy to work according to that kind of brief so 🤷🏻‍♀️

CN is not very bright unless it’s history and English literature. She did nothing relating to science in her education (GCSEs or A-Levels). she was clueless and gullible as a younger woman, but apparently she’s now become a little bit too big for her boots and confused reading news with actually knowing about stuff. Jordan Peterson is by contrast a really sharp mind and really widely schooled, even if you dislike him you can’t deny that. She made the massively foolish error of challenging him on his turf around matters related to clinical psychological evidence, of which she knows absolutely nothing about.

If you fancy a better example of JP sparring, look on YouTube for the interview he did with Helen Lewis for GQ. I thought they were very evenly matched and it was a good watch. She gives him a very robust grilling and isn't intimidated by him at all, and he gets pretty narky with her

Absolutely agree. Mind you, it lacks the enjoyable quality of watching fish shot in a barrel that the CN interview has.

"...his pseudo academic ramblings,.." there not pseudo they're genuine, at least they were until he got cancelled for them.

He's not my cup of tea but that doesn't mean he doesn't get to speak. CN is an airhead, he's a big brain, who was going to show up whom was a no brainer.

But as mentioned up thread he doesn't like it if he comes up against someone who can show he's assertions to be complete bollocks, which a lot of them are.

He's not wrong on everything though, and he does have the education and the knowledge to back up his points about the alphabetties.

And yet he's still cleverer than Newman.

I lost a lot of respect for CN after that interview. She approached it very much from a performative hatchet job on JP point of view. I got the impression she was provided with questions and notes from some activist researcher and her constant 'so what you are saying' reframing of his answers deservedly became a mocking meme.

Just as well I'm not a fan then. I just thought he made a good point here.

I'll look out for that one. I like Helen Lewis

I listen to Times Radio when commuting and her Friday has some good features (the ladder - focus on female leaders and their learning) but is frequently marred by her delivery. She has a particular 'tell' in the way she says a word (want to say hmm - but may have it wrong) which is basically her dismissing everything the guest has said.

I have no idea who either of them are (or their political leanings) but

He made a very valid point.

I like him. I don’t agree with everything he says, indeed there are subjects he’s not qualified to talk about- but still he does. I appreciate his calmness in the face of histrionics. I think the first time I came across him, students were protesting outside his lecture hall and he didn’t miss a step.

I like him too. I don't think he's a great interviewer, he tends not to be great at drawing the person's story out, imo, and rushes in with his own take on the issue but I think in the field of psychology he's excellent. I think he's helped a lot of people by passing on hard-earned wisdom. I particularly like his advice to 'tell the truth, or at least don't lie'.

Watching him interviewing someone is an exercise in frustration because just as the conversation is getting interesting he starts explaining the psychology (or latterly, the biblical relevance) and gets carried away. He asks interesting questions but the guests don’t always get a chance to finish their answer. It comes across as nervous energy or enthusiasm rather than lecturing, and is often relevant, but very frustrating.

Yeah you can. You can be a feminist and actually like men, in particular men who stand up to the Borg and who, shock horror you might need to take a seat, disagree with them on several different topics.

Feminists don't need everyone to think like them, that's not what feminism is.

If you think 'feminists' must hate anyone that disagrees with them on even one thing, then you are not understanding what feminism is.

She’s massively gauche so this sort of clumsiness is really to be expected. I have direct experience of her so, her very great success aside (honestly wrf?!), none of this is at all surprising

Thank you for sharing.
That is priceless.

'Feminists don't need everyone to think like them, that's not what feminism is'

You're so right. In some cases, describing yourself as a feminist seems to really mean 'feminist so long as it doesn't upset anybody's and that's very much not a thing 😁

This man is notoriously misogynistic. He holds some seriously awful views on women. Weird that you can all seemingly overlook that because you agree with him on this.

Which 'notoriously misogynistic' views do you mean?

Christ that was awkward. Cringe overload 😬