Jordan Peterson vs Cathy Newman
Discussion
DeejRC said:
Lets try this again:
She also didnt misconstrue , she took what he said and tried to make it fit the editorial line of questioning. Again, thats fine, you can do that. Part of the skill IS making the responses of an interviewee fit your editorial line.
...tried to make it fit the editorial line of questioning.
C4 have an editorial line. The interviewer is there to enact the editorial line. Its the job. End of. The ideological pov is almost irrelevant, its simply the editorial line. Create a point of difference, etc, etc. Her job was to grab his words and make them fit the angle they wanted the interview to take. Its the standard game.
Witness the kerfuffle afterwards, C4 hiring "security" experts, publicising the anti-Cathy stuff, etc, etc. This is straight from the "all publicity is good publicity" playbook and C4 are jumping over the moon. Cathy Newman is jumping over the moon. Job absolutely jobbed as far as they are concerned. What the ideology is, they dont give a crap about! Do you really think her editor Ben de Pear gives a rat f
k about any feminist Marxist Post-Modernist ideology? Does he buggery.
Peterson comes at a position from a perspective of all conversations should be a mutual transactional dialogue that furthers progression to the/a truth. Newman/C4 came at it as the standard C4 methodology to create a differential with the editorial line so they can present an angle and perspective that they can sell to the viewing public/advertisers.
Actually its funny, as Im writing this I have the Dutch interview in on the background and around about 17mins in or so for the next 10mins, Peterson is actually voicing thoughts out loud very much similar to the above.
Oh and the Dutch interview isn't a patch on the C4 interview. Its not an interview, its just a monologue/lecture. Nothing is gained.
You're wrong. Goodbye.She also didnt misconstrue , she took what he said and tried to make it fit the editorial line of questioning. Again, thats fine, you can do that. Part of the skill IS making the responses of an interviewee fit your editorial line.
...tried to make it fit the editorial line of questioning.
C4 have an editorial line. The interviewer is there to enact the editorial line. Its the job. End of. The ideological pov is almost irrelevant, its simply the editorial line. Create a point of difference, etc, etc. Her job was to grab his words and make them fit the angle they wanted the interview to take. Its the standard game.
Witness the kerfuffle afterwards, C4 hiring "security" experts, publicising the anti-Cathy stuff, etc, etc. This is straight from the "all publicity is good publicity" playbook and C4 are jumping over the moon. Cathy Newman is jumping over the moon. Job absolutely jobbed as far as they are concerned. What the ideology is, they dont give a crap about! Do you really think her editor Ben de Pear gives a rat f
k about any feminist Marxist Post-Modernist ideology? Does he buggery.Peterson comes at a position from a perspective of all conversations should be a mutual transactional dialogue that furthers progression to the/a truth. Newman/C4 came at it as the standard C4 methodology to create a differential with the editorial line so they can present an angle and perspective that they can sell to the viewing public/advertisers.
Actually its funny, as Im writing this I have the Dutch interview in on the background and around about 17mins in or so for the next 10mins, Peterson is actually voicing thoughts out loud very much similar to the above.
Oh and the Dutch interview isn't a patch on the C4 interview. Its not an interview, its just a monologue/lecture. Nothing is gained.
oilbethere said:
DeejRC said:
Lets try this again:
She also didnt misconstrue , she took what he said and tried to make it fit the editorial line of questioning. Again, thats fine, you can do that. Part of the skill IS making the responses of an interviewee fit your editorial line.
...tried to make it fit the editorial line of questioning.
C4 have an editorial line. The interviewer is there to enact the editorial line. Its the job. End of. The ideological pov is almost irrelevant, its simply the editorial line. Create a point of difference, etc, etc. Her job was to grab his words and make them fit the angle they wanted the interview to take. Its the standard game.
Witness the kerfuffle afterwards, C4 hiring "security" experts, publicising the anti-Cathy stuff, etc, etc. This is straight from the "all publicity is good publicity" playbook and C4 are jumping over the moon. Cathy Newman is jumping over the moon. Job absolutely jobbed as far as they are concerned. What the ideology is, they dont give a crap about! Do you really think her editor Ben de Pear gives a rat fk about any feminist Marxist Post-Modernist ideology? Does he buggery.
Peterson comes at a position from a perspective of all conversations should be a mutual transactional dialogue that furthers progression to the/a truth. Newman/C4 came at it as the standard C4 methodology to create a differential with the editorial line so they can present an angle and perspective that they can sell to the viewing public/advertisers.
Actually its funny, as Im writing this I have the Dutch interview in on the background and around about 17mins in or so for the next 10mins, Peterson is actually voicing thoughts out loud very much similar to the above.
Oh and the Dutch interview isn't a patch on the C4 interview. Its not an interview, its just a monologue/lecture. Nothing is gained.
You're wrong. Goodbye.She also didnt misconstrue , she took what he said and tried to make it fit the editorial line of questioning. Again, thats fine, you can do that. Part of the skill IS making the responses of an interviewee fit your editorial line.
...tried to make it fit the editorial line of questioning.
C4 have an editorial line. The interviewer is there to enact the editorial line. Its the job. End of. The ideological pov is almost irrelevant, its simply the editorial line. Create a point of difference, etc, etc. Her job was to grab his words and make them fit the angle they wanted the interview to take. Its the standard game.
Witness the kerfuffle afterwards, C4 hiring "security" experts, publicising the anti-Cathy stuff, etc, etc. This is straight from the "all publicity is good publicity" playbook and C4 are jumping over the moon. Cathy Newman is jumping over the moon. Job absolutely jobbed as far as they are concerned. What the ideology is, they dont give a crap about! Do you really think her editor Ben de Pear gives a rat f
k about any feminist Marxist Post-Modernist ideology? Does he buggery.Peterson comes at a position from a perspective of all conversations should be a mutual transactional dialogue that furthers progression to the/a truth. Newman/C4 came at it as the standard C4 methodology to create a differential with the editorial line so they can present an angle and perspective that they can sell to the viewing public/advertisers.
Actually its funny, as Im writing this I have the Dutch interview in on the background and around about 17mins in or so for the next 10mins, Peterson is actually voicing thoughts out loud very much similar to the above.
Oh and the Dutch interview isn't a patch on the C4 interview. Its not an interview, its just a monologue/lecture. Nothing is gained.
DeejRC said:
Lets try this again:
She also didnt misconstrue , she took what he said and tried to make it fit the editorial line of questioning. Again, thats fine, you can do that. Part of the skill IS making the responses of an interviewee fit your editorial line.
...tried to make it fit the editorial line of questioning.
C4 have an editorial line. The interviewer is there to enact the editorial line. Its the job. End of. The ideological pov is almost irrelevant, its simply the editorial line. Create a point of difference, etc, etc. Her job was to grab his words and make them fit the angle they wanted the interview to take. Its the standard game.
The point is given that objective, she failed miserably. He had her supposed editorial line so tied up in knots she was literally speechless because she couldn't twist his words to suit her position.She also didnt misconstrue , she took what he said and tried to make it fit the editorial line of questioning. Again, thats fine, you can do that. Part of the skill IS making the responses of an interviewee fit your editorial line.
...tried to make it fit the editorial line of questioning.
C4 have an editorial line. The interviewer is there to enact the editorial line. Its the job. End of. The ideological pov is almost irrelevant, its simply the editorial line. Create a point of difference, etc, etc. Her job was to grab his words and make them fit the angle they wanted the interview to take. Its the standard game.
I don't doubt C4 have enjoyed the publicity, but to suppose Newman comes out with any credit (except possibly from within C4) I'd imagine is a bit of a stretch for most viewers.
technodup said:
DeejRC said:
Lets try this again:
She also didnt misconstrue , she took what he said and tried to make it fit the editorial line of questioning. Again, thats fine, you can do that. Part of the skill IS making the responses of an interviewee fit your editorial line.
...tried to make it fit the editorial line of questioning.
C4 have an editorial line. The interviewer is there to enact the editorial line. Its the job. End of. The ideological pov is almost irrelevant, its simply the editorial line. Create a point of difference, etc, etc. Her job was to grab his words and make them fit the angle they wanted the interview to take. Its the standard game.
The point is given that objective, she failed miserably. He had her supposed editorial line so tied up in knots she was literally speechless because she couldn't twist his words to suit her position.She also didnt misconstrue , she took what he said and tried to make it fit the editorial line of questioning. Again, thats fine, you can do that. Part of the skill IS making the responses of an interviewee fit your editorial line.
...tried to make it fit the editorial line of questioning.
C4 have an editorial line. The interviewer is there to enact the editorial line. Its the job. End of. The ideological pov is almost irrelevant, its simply the editorial line. Create a point of difference, etc, etc. Her job was to grab his words and make them fit the angle they wanted the interview to take. Its the standard game.
I don't doubt C4 have enjoyed the publicity, but to suppose Newman comes out with any credit (except possibly from within C4) I'd imagine is a bit of a stretch for most viewers.
The only truth is that there are loads of feminists out there who will be supporting her all the way!
Nope. I popped onto a popular feminist chat board and the overwhelming consensus was that Newman had performed appallingly. Her credibility as a Paxman-esque interrogator is shot and her career will forever be associated with that cretinous 'so it's all about the lobsters' line.
More to the point, fair number of those posting comments were receptive to Peterson's arguments
More to the point, fair number of those posting comments were receptive to Peterson's arguments
And as for the point that Newman triumphed because she followed the editorial line, then if following the editorial line means not only the utter disintegration of your journalistic reputation in front of 3.5 million people but, in the process, the concomitant turbocharging of your ideological opponent's reputation in the eyes of the same, then you have failed. Miserably.
As for Bendy Pear or whatever his name is, he just came out of it looking like a tool.
Ch4 News collectively shot themselves in the foot. No longer a remotely reputable news organisation. I only wish it had been Jon Snow being publicly eviscerated.
As for Bendy Pear or whatever his name is, he just came out of it looking like a tool.
Ch4 News collectively shot themselves in the foot. No longer a remotely reputable news organisation. I only wish it had been Jon Snow being publicly eviscerated.
wsurfa said:
Have no fear, they're coming for the engineers as well. []
They came for the engineers some time ago :"Given that change is required at all levels of society, from the top down redesign of economic systems to the bottom up change in individual behaviour, all our practices will input, favourably or not, to this journey of transition."
From T317 "Innovation : Designing for Change", 60-credit 3rd year module, BEng (Open)
Not a quote from a piece of source material, not a statement for discussion, an unchallenged, unqualified statement forming part of the Course text.
I called it out on the Module forum in 2016, got a fair bit of support from fellow students. Doubt anything has changed, though,
DeejRC - there are a variety of interview techniques, from seductive to combative, also a range of purposes (although they all serve to expose the subject to some degree and in some aspect).
Cathy Newman made two mistakes.
Firstly, she approached Peterson as she would have a politician - "You're hiding something and I'm going to find out what it is." But JP isn't hiding anything. His positions are well-researched, well-rehearsed, and honestly held.
Secondly, she tried, through her nonsensical responses, to derail his argument and fluster him, maybe make him unsure of what he had said - to mess with his head.
Mess with the head of an experienced, practicing clinical psychologist? Give it up, Ms Newman, you're not Hannibal Lecter - you're not even Charles Bronson.
From the Dutch video, it looks like he discovered far more about her than she did about him.
He may have been in the chair, but she was on the couch...
I watched the C4 interview again. It it so compelling and I hope as many people as possible see it.
Western politics is in desperate of need of this man, or someone similar, who can calmy dispell the over simplistic, 140 character social media, PC, far left drivel. And back it up with science.
David Starkey does a job to a point, but is quite rude and clearly uses his history to make his point. But history is littered with terrible mistakes and hardly forward looking.
Corbyn is doing too well and we should be worried because his team use these dangerous soundbites and double standards to their advantage . We saw at the last election how they paralysed the Torys and left them unable to explain their economic policies.
It is no longer acceptable to help the middle class, to say that people who cannot afford kids should think twice before having them, that people who bother to work should get rewards, that equality and fairness are not the same, food banks, not enough female/BME politicians etc.
Western politics is in desperate of need of this man, or someone similar, who can calmy dispell the over simplistic, 140 character social media, PC, far left drivel. And back it up with science.
David Starkey does a job to a point, but is quite rude and clearly uses his history to make his point. But history is littered with terrible mistakes and hardly forward looking.
Corbyn is doing too well and we should be worried because his team use these dangerous soundbites and double standards to their advantage . We saw at the last election how they paralysed the Torys and left them unable to explain their economic policies.
It is no longer acceptable to help the middle class, to say that people who cannot afford kids should think twice before having them, that people who bother to work should get rewards, that equality and fairness are not the same, food banks, not enough female/BME politicians etc.
On a semi-related note, have you ever seen Pharell Williams (of "Happy" fame) as an interviewer? He's very good. Very respectful and gives the other person time to talk, only joins in with a point to make if it's worthwhile, not some half-arsed joke. His interview with Leonard Nemoy is a good watch.
DeejRC said:
wsurfa said:
DeejRC said:
Interesting thread.
snip
Its rather refreshing to hear someone debunk the twaddle at last. Twenty yrs later than some of us realised it, but better late than never. On the plus side it lead me to becoming an engineer instead.
Have no fear, they're coming for the engineers as well, - the new head of Engineering Education at Purdue (a decent engineering uni I think) has specialised in 'applying liberative pedagogies in engineering education, leveraging best practices from women's studies and ethnic studies' and 'understanding how students conceptualize their identities as engineers', whilst 'as an engineering educator to be part of a paradigm shift that these pedagogies demand, repositioning concerns about diversity in science and engineering from superficial measures of equity as headcounts, to addressing justice and the genuine engagement of all students as core educational challenges'snip
Its rather refreshing to hear someone debunk the twaddle at last. Twenty yrs later than some of us realised it, but better late than never. On the plus side it lead me to becoming an engineer instead.
I think you would have loved to have transferred into engineering and then sat in her lectures
I assume she doesnt think that navier-stokes is 'less privileged' than other areas because it deals with fluid flow which is female, rather than load bearing in steel which is hard and therefore male. I think I saw that BS written in some 3rd wave feminist article, I hoped it was from the post-modern generator, but I think it was a real article.
covmutley said:
Interesting. Thanks!The Independent gives an 'independent' view of the reaction to the Newman-Peterson interview.
motco said:
The Independent gives an 'independent' view of the reaction to the Newman-Peterson interview.
Way to go to miss the point, eh?
An interesting fellow, mightily patient too if the C4 interview is anything to go by.
Another of his viewpoints, this time about science, rationality, atheism and religion in societal terms.
https://youtu.be/h_wtAAjLXy0
Another of his viewpoints, this time about science, rationality, atheism and religion in societal terms.
https://youtu.be/h_wtAAjLXy0
Joey Ramone said:
And as for the point that Newman triumphed because she followed the editorial line, then if following the editorial line means not only the utter disintegration of your journalistic reputation in front of 3.5 million people but, in the process, the concomitant turbocharging of your ideological opponent's reputation in the eyes of the same, then you have failed. Miserably.
As for Bendy Pear or whatever his name is, he just came out of it looking like a tool.
Ch4 News collectively shot themselves in the foot. No longer a remotely reputable news organisation. I only wish it had been Jon Snow being publicly eviscerated.
Agree on everything, especially the last point. As for Bendy Pear or whatever his name is, he just came out of it looking like a tool.
Ch4 News collectively shot themselves in the foot. No longer a remotely reputable news organisation. I only wish it had been Jon Snow being publicly eviscerated.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff