A recent debate on Channel 4 News in the UK has created quite a stir. It was originally billed as a debate about the gender pay gap, which in itself is nothing too outrageous. We all like to think of ourselves as being fair. Cathy Newman was the interviewer and the clinical psychologist Jordan P Peterson was being interviewed You can see the whole interview here.
What makes this so remarkable is the response to the interview. Hayley Barlow, head of communications tweeted Whatever you make of this interview, the abuse from some being directed at my colleague @cathynewman is something no one should have to endure.
This was quickly followed up by Ben de Pear, Editor of Channel 4 news saying that the comments on social media were so viriolic that a security specialist was being called in and a report sent to the Metropolitan Police! He cited hate, misogyny, nastiness and threats.
I looked at the conversations on social media and I could not see any threats. In fact one user noted “Abuse? Looking at the comments on the video there isn’t any abuse. Its critical analysis of an unprofessional interview. Worded respectfully and without malice.”
4:55 AM – 18 Jan 2018
So what is it all about?
Having seen the interview Cathy Newman seemed to be a bit out of her depth, in fact almost disingenuous. Continually misquoting words that were only seconds before spoken. But the point is this. People are now seeming to not just accept that the Main Stream Media can promote their particular spin on something. People are now questioning the narrative. And rightly so.
Here is a sample of responses on twitter.
It’s interesting that she went from the aggressor to the victim as soon as she didn’t get the outcome she wanted. Sounds familiar? ….
Killed with facts and agreeableness
What’s extremely funny is that @jordanbpeterson was agreeable throughout the whole interview. Then think about how much he was accused of generalizing men and women. Then think about the work he’s done with female lawyers….. And that 1 min clip where he proves his point.
Embarrassing defeat for Channel 4 here. Propagating fake news, Cathy
This presenter is spectacularly unqualified to be at the same desk as Dr. Peterson. Painful.
Totally agree.He was succinct while she generalised, attacked and put words in his mouth! Totally misrepresented him.
Totally out of her depth, JP indulged her idiocy with class.
Not debate. Car crash interview. Cathy didn’t seem to understand what Professor Petersen was saying and was, appallingly, focused on one figure (9%) taken out of context.
I hate this type of journalism. People try to pursue a point which they have pre-determined to be ‘news’. Embarrassing how many times she tries to trap the professor, only to have her move reversed back on her.
Yep. Used to watch every night but in the past couple of years it is so unbalanced it’s an insult to the rules of journalism. Guru Murthy making every interview with a black person about racism. Newman going easy on Jess Philips. Assed Baig was the final straw, though. Now this.
Ludicrous- I recall sanctimonious @jonsnowC4 telling a 16 year old Brit while gloating over an anticipated, assumed #Remain victory on the eve of the #Referendum, that a German kid in the English cafe where he was filming was ‘as British as you are’. Shouldn’t be allowed on air.
2 replies2 retweets52 likes
It’s become a parody of itself. I wonder about Jon & Alex’s thinking on what it has become.
Cancelled TV Licence last year on the back of this type of interview – refuse to pay to watch such utter bias!
Well, there is no abuse there, just intelligent criticism of poor journalism. And I, for one, am glad to see it.
The silent majority are silent no more. Or at least less silent.
There was a time when people would hurl abuse at a view they disagreed with, but this is not it. Now people are turning away, refusing to be spoon fed the official line and engaging in ‘wrongthink’. They are turning to outlets like Breitbart, engaging in uncensored conversations on Gab social media. If this continues the advertisers will follow.
What is really quite sad is that a broadcaster, and a self described public service one at that, has to resort to caking in security specialists and threatening police action just because their unprofessional-ism has been highlighted and their narrative being called into question