You said what?



Douglas Murray lays into C4s Cathy Newman for her inept interview with Jordan Peterson.

Although it is C4 the interview is pretty much symptomatic of so many interviews in the BBC…and C4 is just as lefty biased as the BBC anyway….we just aren’t forced to pay for it.

Newman comes with a preset agenda that bears little relationship to what Peterson says and she compounds that by not actually listening to what he says.  She constantly tells him what he has said and yet he just didn’t say it…such as equal pay will make women miserable….and despite Peterson explaining that he didn’t say that and what he actually said was women marrying men who refuse to grow up will make them miserable Newman continued to make the same claim amongst many others that were equally wrong and misquotes of what Peterson actually said…and he spoke quite clearly and coherently…so not hard to follow.

Pretty typical of so many BBC interviews, Emma Barnett is particularly guilty of this, where the interviewer just  doesn’t listen to what they are being told, and/or have their own agenda which they are so desperate to push they disregard anything that is inconvenient for their own narrative.

As mentioned before in previous posts it makes you wonder why the BBC clings on so desperately to ‘talent’ and is willing to pay through the nose to do so when quite clearly any half-competent person could be dragged in off the street to do the same job for vastly less, but still respectable, wages…I exaggerate but not much.



Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to You said what?

  1. Fedup2 says:

    It was the wonderful channel four news. Publicly funded anti British tripe

    Ms Newman will probably accuse him of bullying .


    • Doublethinker says:

      She is probably too think to realise how catastrophic her performance was.


      • NCBBC says:

        Pitting Cathy Newman against Jordon Peterson is not fair.

        Half the time she just did not understand what he was saying, leave alone the implications. Jordon Peterson could not help but laugh at her inanity.

        I suppose she got where she is not due to intelligence but being unpleasant.

        Men have been dying in the most unpleasant jobs, and in war, far more then women, for centuries. I don’t see women clamoring to be miners, or front line marines. I didn’t see women in the trenches in WW1. So what is this patriarchy?

        I propose we have all female feminist SAS and marine regiments. It might work, as they would immediately surrender to the mujahiddeen. Then imagine a mujahideen claiming his 4 wives – 4 radical feminists. I almost pity the guy.


    • Alan says:

      Yep, thanks….apologies…c4 not Sky. Updated.


  2. Fedup2 says:

    This blog is covered with comments about this interview .
    It says as much about the quality of tv news as it does anything else . When a calm logical speaker engages these overpaid autocue readers the “journos “ get fried . JRM is another example but al beeb and others dismiss him for his personal qualities such as manners – which the like of snow humph and their fans gave up years ago for cash


    • Far Horizons says:

      Most tv interviewers would be shown up as totally useless if it was not for the hidden earpiece and being prompted by the so called experts in the controll room who are only there because they are on message with the BBC agenda.


  3. imaynotalwaysloveyou says:

    I hope Mrs May might have seen this. As he is an expert on personality it would be nice if she could ask him for some assertiveness training.

    Her ‘agreeableness’ trait (yes to more migrants, yes to more concessions to EU) is fast becoming a ‘traitorous’ trait.


    • Fedup2 says:

      The stairs in number 10 with photographs of Conservative Prime Ministers doesn’t really make for impressive viewing -with the exception of Mrs T of course .
      I take it the £44 000 000 of taxpayers kit can be brought back to Blighty when we brexit in
      435 days ….

      It’s getting tight for a second referendum unless the 27 extend the 2 years as provided in a50.


      • taffman says:

        Will the next referendum be either ……

        ‘BINO’ Brexit in name only.
        ‘Remain’ in the EU .

        Hobson’s choice.


  4. Doublethinker says:

    In the same issue of the Spectator as Douglas Murray’s article is one by Rod Liddell on the BBC pay gap that ms Newman referred to . Rod rips into the BBC Wimmin basically saying that the country is sick to death of hearing of their victim hood, which is of course correct. But then he says , I think tongue in cheek, that this issue could bankrupt the corporation. But surely one of the main issues that many poster on this site have with the BBC is that it can’t go bankrupt because governments of all stripes will just allow it to put up the LF. Admittedly each rise in the LF will persuade more people to rebel and refuse to pay it but it will take many rebellions to overthrow the liberal left propaganda arm that is the BBC.


    • Iain Muir says:

      “with the BBC is that it can’t go bankrupt”

      That is a fundamental difference between the public and private sectors, and a reason why the Left finds it relatively easy to sell the idea to its less thoughtful followers that the public sector is superior.

      The supply of other people’s money never runs out (or hardly ever), whereas a failing private company either goes out of business or is bailed out at public expense. These failures attract wide publicity, shoring up the Left’s argument. The fact that being “bailed out” is a natural state for the public sector is rarely mentioned.


      • nofanofpoliticians says:

        He’s right, it could easily bankrupt the corporation. I’m not so sure it was tongue in cheek.

        If the BBC decide to raise the pay of women so that its equal with men, which lets face it is an easier conversation for them to have than to half men’s pay (which is what they ought to do) then what happens about pensions, life insurance and all the other peripherals?

        How far back does that all get backdated? I don’t believe that the BBC could get away with ramping the Licence Fee, not sure the public would stand for it.

        It’s a can of worms.


  5. Rob in Cheshire says:

    I watched a short programme on Sky News about the body language of politicians recently.

    I am not sure if it is really a serious subject, but it did seem to make sense. The expert in question explained that President Trump’s body language was that of an alpha male, who wants to assert himself over other people. By contrast, Theresa May’s body language is timid and scared, she stoops as if to protect herself, and grimaces when asked a difficult question.

    I have seen these behavioural charcteristics in Mrs May for myself, so I am glad they seem to be backed up. Basically, Mrs May is a scared woman who is not up to the job of leader. No doubt that is why she capitulated yet again to Macron only today. She truly is Theresa the Appeaser. At this most vital period in our post-war history, we have got the very worst person you could imagine as Prime Minister.

    As our climate change friends always tell us, you can’t argue with the science!


    • yohodi says:

      “Timid and Scared”
      I wonder how much influence our Theresa’s husband (Banker Phil) has around the house, and in the wee small hours…it’s possible his past is more interesting than one would suppose..


    • vesnadog says:

      “No doubt that is why she capitulated yet again to Macron”

      My worry is she may do likewise because of all this drip-drip coverage/incorrect public demand for a second referendum treachery!


  6. GRIM REAPER says:

    Would love to have seen Jon Snow pitched against Peterson….the Prof would have torn him apart…about time he was.


  7. Scronker says:

    Jordan Peterson – absolutely brilliant. Ran circles round the interviewer who actually had to concede to his argument and became lost for words. They won’t be interviewing him again for a while. Ha ha!


  8. countryblues says:

    In defence of Cathy, at least she allowed her guest to speak (an obvious mistake!) and that was her undoing. Normally an interviewer would never allow any answer and talk continuously over them, unless a Lefty/Labour/Remoaner type, of course 🙁

    It’ll be interesting to see whether there are other newsgals lining up to take him on now to gain revenge for wimminkind or will they avoid him like the plague?


    • NCBBC says:

      She didnt. She did her best to put words in his mouth, then changed the subject. However, Jordan Peterson very forcefully, would not let her get away with falsehood.

      At around the 14 mt mark, Cathy, without her knowing it, begins to adopt the attitude of the student. By this stage, she has conceded the battle, and apart from a few rebellious outbursts, she has settled down.


  9. Spider says:

    Jordan has improved much over the last few years. If you look at some of his older videos he does not speak as much. He is assertive when needed, and turning her argument onto herself was a stroke of genius. Her realisation that she was the very thing that she was accusing men of being was brilliant.


  10. NCBBC says:

    Near the end of the “interview” Prof Peterson, was making some interesting comments on male/female brain chemistry, evolution, hierarchy, tying similar effects of anti-depressants on humans and lobsters. Lots to think and investigate.

    Cathy’s response ” “so you’re saying we should organise our societies like lobsters”.

    What did she study at Oxford? Social Studies, English, media studies?


  11. Loobyloo says:

    He is a joy to listen to, because he is a learned academic and a practising clinical psychologist…as he informed her –
    Cathy – ‘how do you know that’
    Jordan – ‘because I’m a clinical psychologist’
    Cathy – ‘so you’ve done your research’…

    That made her look pretty foolish, as if she hadn’t done hers. In fact she made the whole gender equality issue look like a big women’s moan (in some ways, true) – she didn’t seem to want to discuss his examples, other than the lobster one, which she brought up, probably to make him look silly, when she should have discovered that he knows his stuff about evolutionary biology/psychology. It’s also ridiculous for her colleague to defend her from social media. They are quite happy to be a part of it, and she is a female professional, who wants to be equal…so suck it up! Learn from your mistakes!


  12. NCBBC says:

    Near the end of the “interview” Prof Peterson, was making some interesting comments on male/female brain chemistry, evolution, hierarchy, tying similar effects of anti-depressants on humans and lobsters, postulating that hierarchy is not a social construct. Lots to think.

    Cathy’s response ” “so you’re saying we should organise our societies to live like lobsters”.

    Prof Peterson. to his credit, takes this inane response, as an opportunity to educate his audience, which is his prime duty.


  13. Dystopian says:

    Wow breaking news!
    I’m so glad we have the bBBC to enlighten us about Prince Williams £180 hair cut.
    Nicky Campbell: “What’s the difference between a hairdresser and a barber?”
    Interviewee: “One cuts women’s hair and one cuts men’s”

    Oh and now a bit of Trump bashing, totally irrelevant
    Speculating about whether or not he has a comb over and how the hairdresser would sort it out.

    Surely there are plenty of people other than the POTUS who they could consider needs their hairstyle improving. It’s just totally unnecessary relentless anti Trump rhetoric and it’s becoming very tiresome.

    I think we need a new hate speech definition for insulting someone on the basis of their hairstyle.


    • Cranmer says:

      What is pathetic is that people are STILL making fun of Mr Trump’s hairstyle despite the fact that he has mocked it himself, and even explained in an article how he styles it (it’s not a combover but it has an unusual fringe which make it look odd). He obviously sees the funny side, but they act as if he doesn’t. Truly there really is a ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ with some people.


    • Alicia Sinclair says:

      £180 to give balding Prince William a haircut?
      How many hairs did they find to cut then? Homer Simpson probably has more of them.
      Poor lad, balding in his twneties and hardly any brighter than his jug eared dad.
      The monarchy will go unless Princess Anne takes over, the last of the greats IMHO.


  14. GreenBean says:

    “and C4 is just as lefty biased as the BBC anyway….we just aren’t forced to pay for it.”

    We sadly are forced to pay for it, Channel 4 is partly state funded, I believe.


  15. Beeb Brother says:

    The interview is chilling because it shows how this leftist dogma which has infected nearly every institution, and is actually illegal to disagree with, is spurious and based on little more than hurt feelings. She came across as a mad moron, yet that delusional and irrational mentality holds sovereign sway.

    Were their goal of equal outcomes for all pursued it would involve tyranny and unimaginable suffering, not least for women who may well find working in IT or doing 80 hour weeks to become a CEO hell on Earth. As Peterson says, men and women have eradicable differences – which is obvious to any sane, sentient human being.

    What a hero Peterson is: he never backs down and stands his ground. That is how we beat these bullies. Never apologise and know your facts, because no matter how hard they bully and twist things the SJWs do not have truth on their side.


  16. Thoughtful says:

    I think it would be better to take a look at why this interview was such a disaster and how it might have been better to arrive at constructive conclusions.

    Firstly let us take an prominent academic in a different field where the subject is complex, and the audience (and interviewer) don’t understand the field such as science. It is the interviewers job to keep the academic from becoming so complex, the audience are lost. Here being ignorant of the subject is a plus, because the interviewer can ask the questions the audience would have, and take the guest down a path which educates the viewer without losing them.

    This was not what happened with Newman.

    The reason this interview failed was because Newman doesn’t want the audience to be educated about Newmans position, she is so full of anger and hate that it is palpable. The problem is here though that Newman is lacking in every single area needed to be able to attack Newmans position.

    In making this an attack she needed to have full understanding, which she didn’t have, she only knew that Peterson was an enemy and treated him as such. Not often you see such cognitive dissonance so plainly in view, and at one point she actually has to stop questioning because her arguments have been so comprehensively destroyed that she doesn’t know what to ask next.

    There is much repetition of questions, and it would appear that a train of questions have been written and she’s going to stick to that regardless of the answers given. This is why she appears to ignore what is being said to her and why Peterson has to constantly correct her.

    Don’t forget either with a hostile interview like this it isn’t just Newman asking the questions, she has an earpiece and a control room full of like minded drones ready to feed her with questions to ask in support. This is a three or more against one interview, even if it isn’t presented like that.

    One of the most disturbing things though in the interview is the belief of Newman that free speech should be banned if some might be offended by it. She can see no problem with Maoism so long as it’s being carried out by one of the favoured victim groups, and seems affronted by the idea anyone should be free to criticise them.

    It is becoming of increasing concern to me, that the more lefties I speak to the more I am hearing their increasing acceptance of the need to kill those who oppose them. The problem here is as we have all seen, the move from the loony Left, to acceptance of their crackpot ideas over a couple of decades, and I’m sure an arch appeaser like May would be only too happy to allow quiet executions of those found guilty of ‘hate’.

    Alas nothing will change as a result of this interview, save that Petersons enemies in the University will have become even more motivated to remove him from his post at the university.


    • Fedup2 says:

      Thoughtful – your comment about some peoples’ desire to kill others who do not concer with their view of the world it really worrying .

      I think it has been happening and growing long before the polarisation caused by the brexit vote and the view taken by many in my view – that their views are rubbished or ignored as with immigration .

      I also wonder if it’s because for many people violence death are pretty distant and not smelt or tasted but viewed as spectator through tv or the web .

      I sometimes fall into this emotional reaction. And should know far better


  17. Lucy Pevensey says:

    I have just learned a new word from a German fellow: Krautliphate

    Merkel’s new Germany


    • Fedup2 says:

      According to my favourite Lefty news rag – the guardian – ms Newman has received so much stick that channel four is calling in ‘ security experts ‘ to stop the ‘abuse’ . Free speach can be limited can’t it.
      She got a first in English from the girly college at oxford – lady Margaret I think – watching her get creamed in that interview suggests they haven’t got the highest of standards .


      • GRIM REAPER says:

        Oxford foisted one Owen Jones [ 14 1/2 ] upon us…i suggest Oxbridge has serious quality issues…….


        • NCBBC says:

          Almost all soft subjects in Western universities have been corrupted and dumbed down by marxists. Graduates in the last twenty years are trained to be SJWs. That is why they gravitate to media like the BBC, and the leftovers to CoE.


      • NCBBC says:


        You are right

        Channel 4 News has called in security specialists to analyse threats made to presenter Cathy Newman following her interview with a controversial Canadian psychologist who has attracted a following among the “alt-right”.

        Ben de Pear, the editor of Channel 4 News, said Newman had been subjected to “vicious misogynistic abuse”. Having to calling in security specialists was a “terrible indictment of the times we live in”, he said.

        So channel 4 is pretending that Cathy Newman is a victim. That Peterson’s followers are right wing, hurling misogynistic abuse to poor Cathy Newman. Why should they, if they ever did. Their man won.

        This is typical feminist behaviour.. They engage in vicious attacks on people who they dont agree with. When defeated, they run to the corrupt media crying and moaning, and the corrupt left media piles on.

        This just proves Prof Peterson’s contention, that to get to the top in a major corporation is tough. Very tough in a dog eat dog world. Women, by and large, because of their ability to empathise (which I cherish), would not be able to take it. Cathy Newman “made it” in a lefty feminist sympathising media organisation. In the corporate world, she wouldn’t survive. She would be hurt, and simply not apply for such a job, as the aftermath of the interview indicates.

        I’m certain that Prof Peterson has been subject to far greater abuse from Marxist leftists then Cathy Newman. He has no major corporation rushing to his defence. Even his university disowned him. No security guards for him, yet he does not go crying to Fox.

        Channel 4’s circling the wagons around Cathy Newman, merely substantiates Prof Peterson’s contention that there is no glass ceiling, and no patriarchy that prevents women from reaching the top. Its just that women are smart enough not to go for such a poisoned chalice, as they have a better option to be CEO for life of a family. Men don’t have that option.

        The sad thing is their is no one in the BBC to stand against moaning feminists who want top positions handed to them. We all will be paying a bigger fee to the BBC and channel4 next year.


        • Alicia Sinclair says:

          Worth a look NCBBC.
          Sense a Harlow/Gleiwitz moment again here, along the Jo Cox continuum.
          Would check this, bet its Channel 4s reflex attempt to win a Trumponian Fake News Commendation in 2018.
          And its from the Guardian-which rather confirms it.


          • NCBBC says:


            Thank you. That is a very perceptive insight into the mind of the left.

            I note that the Guardian has disabled comments on the article I linked. I have a feeling they are not sure of the support of their own. .


        • Guest Who says:

          We have been here before surely? Didn’t Lord Hall Hall get issued Ray Donovan and The Expendables as close protection (still there? Quietly dropped?) after a mean tweet was located in Europe?

          What exactly does Ch4 and the MSM expect? They get to badger, harangue and mock with not only impunity, but without counter, lest they reap what they sow?

          Here’s a lady-dominated view that suggests not all from the fairer sex are such rampant thumb-sucking hypocrites:


    • GRIM REAPER says:

      I’ve been calling the EU the ‘ Fourth Reich ‘ for ages…remainers froth when i do….tough.


      • Fedup2 says:

        But that’s the point isn’t it – the EU is the fourth Reich . And when we re gone they can call it the fifth reich and really get down to the liebensraun in the East again now that they’ve imported vibrant diverse guest workers .


        • Alicia Sinclair says:

          Good quotes in the Daily Mail today.
          ” The New Europe of solidarity and co-operation among all its people will find rapidly increasing prosperity once national economic boundaries are removed”
          Arthur-Seyss Inquart( Austrian Nazi, executed as one of Hitlers little helpers in 1946).

          Can`t say we`vew not been warned, at least the Nazis didn`t try to con the continent into agreeing to go along with their evil with double referendums and such.


  18. Alicia Sinclair says:

    I too thought this a great interview, poor Anne of Cleves reduced to a hairdressers dummy head.
    If she`s the best that the media can put up by way of current women presenters, then Peterson is not only totally correct. But even Bobby Riggs is, Newman is just that bad.
    If Petersons idea was not to preach to the converts like us-but to go over Channel 4s baffle boards and address those viewers who patently hate him and his ideas-then he succeeded mightily.
    Hence the retrospective confections of some kind of hounding of Newnman by his trolls(and he`d already dealt with this at the end of the interview-anybody would think that this fake story of security guards was all set up for a next chapter, given that Newman was by now an aborted train wreck as an interviewer.
    Classic lefty second bites when nationally humiliated as here.
    Peterson went over the top and gave Channel 4s dimwit regulars a rare glimpse of authenticity and truth. No wonder the controllers are so pissed at his nerve. How will they get their sheeple all back into the pen again after THIS illumination?
    If anything he was way too nice, but my mum said you`d catch more flies with sugar than with vinegar.


  19. Synchronised says:

    I’ve now watched this three times. First time to enjoy the dismantling. Second time to analyse
    Petetsen’s answers and general views. Thirdly to try and understand his opponents arguments against his views on society. Needless to say I couldn’t find a single thing that didn’t make sense. Shouting someone down, be it the interview technique adopted by Cathy or the collective hoards claiming bigot, misogynist etc just isn’t acceptable when they cannot come up with an intellectual counter point of view.


  20. Beeb Brother says:

    Her tactic throughout was to try and provoke him saying something that made him look bigoted, sexist etc. That comment would then be wrenched from context and edited to look as bad as possible then played over and over with maximum ‘outrage’ and all the reasonable things he said would be excluded from the edited piece played at prime time.

    What dishonest, nasty bullies they are.


    • StewGreen says:

      Yep @BB “What dishonest, nasty bullies they are”
      that describes the liberal-mob


  21. Oaknash says:

    I think this interview exposes the feminazis for what they are cowardly, lazy, men hating haridans.
    It never ceases to amaze me the amount of energy these “wimmin” put into trying to take out a personable but obviously intelligent bloke who in reality just wants men and women (even wimmin) to get on with each other. As usual they are all silent about the all the methods of “enrichment” the “religion of peace” brings to the fairer sex such as FGM, the burkah, legitimised rape of Kaffir women. We know they wont tackle this because they too are afraid of reprisals and the commonly accepted PC pro Islamic viewpoint always trumps any concerns about medieval savagery and ignorance.

    There are a whole host of female campaigners who want to debate this (some having undergone FGM themselves) out there. But how often do we see them on the MSM. Very rarely because they just know that most people should be far more concerned about female executive pay and other imagined middle class slights than something that can kill, injure or maim you.

    What a strange world these people live in. As for the lovely Cathy – I think actions speak louder than words and it is obvious she just hates most men probably only really likes meek, pinny wearing “house husband types and certainly not clever ones who treat her half baked, pseudo intellectual bitter beatings with the affable contempt they deserve.


    • Fedup2 says:

      Ironic that wiki describes her spouse as a “house husband “- and shockingly she has 2 brats . Don’t know if she bought them at Calais though


      • Oaknash says:

        Blimey FE2 – I honestly did not know. So strange that in reality these feminazis really want to become everything they espouse to hate.

        Quite happy to block up the airwaves with bitterness about imagined slights whilst elsewhere many women are being raped in their thousands and virtually enslaved whilst the PC genuflecting authorities prefer to waste time worrying about personal pronouns


        • Fedup2 says:

          Oak ,
          It’s a bit tedious to research the nature of the enemy but necessary to be more objectively informed .

          It is strange that there isn’t much on the editor or Channel four who is ultimately responsible for the daily smug poisonous bias they pump out .

          I still think the jon snow turning up at Grenfell Tower and getting roasted almost beats the Cathy Newman “ gotcha moment” first from oxford indeed ..


      • Oaknash says:

        Blimey FE2 – I honestly did not know. So strange that in reality these feminazis really want to become everything they espouse to hate.

        Quite happy to block up the airwaves with bitterness about imagined slights whilst elsewhere many women are being raped in their thousands and virtually enslaved whilst the PC genuflecting authorities prefer to waste time worrying about personal pronouns


  22. Oaknash says:

    Of course I may have Cathy wrong all along. Maybe, secretly what she really wants was for Jordan to say “Oy Cathy – go iron my bloody pants and get a move on you lazy Cow!
    Maybe Cathy Newman really wants to be Cathy Oldman.
    Just a thought!


  23. StewGreen says:

    As regards personal protection
    LBC just covered how even today there can’t be a public statue of Margaret Thatcher, cos every time they try a plaque or something it gets vandalized
    .. BTW the claim that Newman is under threat seems a stunt.
    I would expect such high profile as her get post from nutters all the time and have to take routine precautions.


    • Guest Who says:

      Just like much more serious and relevant and actually tangible terrorist atrocities, the responses seem laughably transparent as no more than smoke and mirrors for a period long enough to cover the news cycle the majority are content to be educated and informed by.

      Shoot up a magazine office? Post a hapless gendarme with an HK outside for a month. Slaughter a beach load of sunbathers? Get the local fuzz to walk about a bit. Get a nasty tweet from overseas? Uniquely fund Range Rovers full of Men in Leather Jackets to take you to work for… how long?

      If serious about these threats, how is it the powers that be, or BBC, reckon someone dangerous and credible enough to require such defences may not be patient enough to wait a few months until they stand down?

      It’s just part and parcel of saying your way of life is not going to be changed, but it really is, at least until the budget/perception balance tips.


  24. ChrisMorrison says:

    A car crash interview that ought to be given to every trainee journalist to show how not to do it. But of course most tv autocuties behave like this. Don’t listen and have a pre-defined virtue signaling agenda. In a three minute interview it works because they can always interrupt, shout down answers and rant away. Over 30 minutes with Professor Peterson, a guy with a logical razor clam brain, it was a disaster – a wonderful, hysterically funny, truly enlightening disaster. The “you got me there” moment was a master class in capturing Ms Newman in her own ghastly anti-free speech (unless it is mine) logic.


  25. Thoughtful says:

    One of the reasons not explored in the interview is the disparity between men and women in starting new businesses, because women are more risk averse than men.

    Once a business is established and successful the capital value increases which is normally held by the person who started the business, once there is sufficient profit a dividend would normally be paid, but it is more tax efficient to take this as a salary bonus, thus we saw the female CEO of BET365 take a £199 Million salary last year! She holds 50.01% of the shares, her brother and others holding the rest, so we can assume the split is largely equal.

    You don’t need many of those kinds of salary payments to skew the figures in the favour of men and it’s all because of the tax system and nothing to do with gender at all.