Jordan Peterson interview on C4

JMNolan

Every second sentence from her was "so your saying..."

Horrific interviewing technique to be honest.

givyjoe

Brian? wrote: »

This is exactly the rhetoric I was criticising.

She didn’t have her “her behind expertly handed to her”. She asked provocative questions and got intelligent answers. That’s her bloody job as a journalist. She didn’t attempt to rebut a single point Peterson made.

I fail to see this ambush or moral outrage either. The 2 of them were warm and good natured to each other at the end. It was tense at points but humorous at the end.

Its not her job to twist the answers given by the person she was interviewing, whatever the reason, e.g. not understanding the answers or otherwise.

Seriously, what interview were you watching that you believe she did a good job?

A Little Pony

Brian? wrote: »

Ush1 wrote: »

My point is call it what you like, she made it adversarial from the get go and came out looking foolish.

I’ll call it what it is. A journalist interviewing a man.  

She didn’t present a single argument. How can it be a debate?

This carry on of “Let’s all cheer Dr Peterson for winning a one sided debate, because we already love him.” Is a nonsense. I’m actually fairly sure he’d agree. I’d like to see him actually debate an intelligent feminist, it could be great.

Like searching for hens teeth, you will be waiting a while.

johnp001

In the first 3 minutes of this video Scott Adams describes what he thinks happens in the Peterson/Newman interview. Interesting from a psychological point of view (and in line with what a previous poster stated about Cassie Jaye's TED talk)

Pac1Man

Brian? wrote: »

I’ll call it what it is. A journalist interviewing a man.

It certainly was not just that. The responsibility of a journalist during an interview is to impartially extract the information from the interviewee.

This is an exact quote from her:

"I thoroughly enjoyed my bout with @jordanbpeterson as did 100s of 1000s of our viewers. Viva feminism, viva free speech."

Bout? Viva feminism? Doesn't scream impartial to me. Openly admitting to having a bout is very unprofessional and throws any feint legitimacy she had out the window.

Brian?

Pac1Man wrote: »

It certainly was not that. The responsibility of a journalist during an interview is to impartially extract the information from the interviewee.

This is an exact quote from her:

"I thoroughly enjoyed my bout with @jordanbpeterson as did 100s of 1000s of our viewers. Viva feminism, viva free speech."

Bout? Viva feminism? Doesn't scream impartial to me. Openly admitting to having a bout is very unprofessional and throws any feint legitimacy she had out the window.

A journalists job is not to be impartial. Why would it be?

yellowlabrador

Jordan Peterson responds to Channel 4 interview controversy

Brian?

givyjoe wrote: »

Its not her job to twist the answers given by the person she was interviewing, whatever the reason, e.g. not understanding the answers or otherwise.

Seriously, what interview were you watching that you believe she did a good job?

She did a job because of the answers she got. Simples. She did a very good job of having Peterson explain his opinions. Do I like how she did it? Not really. But that’s not the point. She didn’t engage in a debate with him, she got him speaking in depth. Job done.

Ush1

Brian? wrote: »

This is exactly the rhetoric I was criticising.

She didn’t have her “her behind expertly handed to her”. She asked provocative questions and got intelligent answers. That’s her bloody job as a journalist. She didn’t attempt to rebut a single point Peterson made.

I fail to see this ambush or moral outrage either. The 2 of them were warm and good natured to each other at the end. It was tense at points but humorous at the end.

If you want to talk rhetoric, it wasn't so much questions she was asking as laying accusations at him.

It was humourous at a few points for him because she consistently tried straw manning his points every step of the way.

I'm not sure you actually believe what you're posting to be honest. If her job was levelling lazy tropes and appearing like you've done no research or prep, she certainly did her job.

Brian?

A Little Pony wrote: »

Like searching for hens teeth, you will be waiting a while.

Zing! Aren’t you hilarious. Women eh? Roll eyes emoji.

There are plenty of intelligent feminists. This level of discourse does no one any good. Let’s all pick a side and become ever more entrenched in its beliefs and idiosyncrasies. That’ll really help.

MagicIRL

Brian? wrote: »

A journalists job is not to be impartial. Why would it be?

Should a journalist not report on facts and not opinion? Therefore, by the nature of facts being facts, be impartial?

A Little Pony

Brian? wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Like searching for hens teeth, you will be waiting a while.

Zing! Aren’t you hilarious. Women eh? Roll eyes emoji.

There are plenty of intelligent feminists. This level of discourse does no one any good. Let’s all pick a side and become ever more entrenched in its beliefs and idiosyncrasies. That’ll really help.

Can you name one who would be able to beat Peterson in a debate arguing about patriarchy, gender pay gap and other such nonsense?

givyjoe

Brian? wrote: »

A journalists job is not to be impartial. Why would it be?

You're joking now right, surely?

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

Ironically his only solution for any gender disparity is for women to be less agreeable. I find this hilarious. If you listen it’s the only actual solution to any problem he suggests. Everything else he says is exposition on the problems.

Are you Cathy Newman by any chance? He said it was one of the ways to combat gender disparity, not the only way. Did you miss the segment on where in his sessions he worked with women and their negotiating skills and training them in assertiveness?

You fall into the same trap that many feminists do, you project what you think he is saying but not actually listening to what he actually says.

givyjoe

MagicIRL wrote: »

Should a journalist not report on facts and not opinion? Therefore, by the nature of facts being facts, be impartial?

Or.... go work for Fox News.

OldRio

Brian? wrote: »

She did a job because of the answers she got. Simples. She did a very good job of having Peterson explain his opinions. Do I like how she did it? Not really. But that’s not the point. She didn’t engage in a debate with him, she got him speaking in depth. Job done.

'So what you're saying is?' Ad finitum.
It was quite frankly embarrassing. Appalling interview technique.

Just a footnote. I have no idea who Peterson is and therefore no agenda.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

A journalists job is not to be impartial. Why would it be?

Channel 4 News Broadcasting would disagree with you there.

http://www.channel4.com/producers-handbook/ofcom-broadcasting-code/due-impartiality-due-accuracy-and-undue-prominence-of-views-and-opinions/due-impartiality-in-news-programmes

News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality. In addition to traditional news programmes, "news" includes news bulletins, news flashes and daily news magazine programmes.

So does the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality

The Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter requires us to do all we can to ensure controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality in our news and other output dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy.

Stop digging, your making yourself look foolish.

Ush1

"Report the story, don't become the story."

20Cent

Saruhashi wrote: »

"Didn't watch the video"

Proceeds to tell everyone opinion on the video anyway.

Amazing.

I didn't comment on the video just him from other stuff I've seen. Media is so dumbed down anyone can state obvious things throw in some scientific words or facts and be hailed as an intellectual. That's what he is doing and also selling buzzfeed style self help. Not impressed by him at all but he is telling the alt right what they want to hear so cashing in on it.

Brian?

MagicIRL wrote: »

Should a journalist not report on facts and not opinion? Therefore, by the nature of facts being facts, be impartial?

When making a report yes. When interviewing, no. She’s challenging someone sitting in front of her for answers. Why is impartiality needed? They can defend themselves, as Peterson did very well.

Brian?

A Little Pony wrote: »

Can you name one who would be able to beat Peterson in a debate arguing about patriarchy, gender pay gap and other such nonsense?

No I can’t name the winner of a debate before the debate occurs. I’m not clairvoyant.

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

Are you Cathy Newman by any chance? He said it was one of the ways to combat gender disparity, not the only way. Did you miss the segment on where in his sessions he worked with women and their negotiating skills and training them in assertiveness?

You fall into the same trap that many feminists do, you project what you think he is saying but not actually listening to what he actually says.

Yes. He said it was one of the ways. But it was the only way he offered. The irony of your last point is hilarious. I said it was the only solution he offered, I did not say he said it was the only solution. Go back and read what I said.

I have repeatedly said I listened with interest and agreed with a lot of his points. So keep up.

Brian?

Ush1 wrote: »

"Report the story, don't become the story."

I’d agree if she did a investigative piece on Peterson. But she didn’t. She interviewed him and allowed him to speak for himself with no edits.

Wombatman

Brian? wrote: »

She did a job because of the answers she got. Simples. She did a very good job of having Peterson explain his opinions. Do I like how she did it? Not really. But that’s not the point. She didn’t engage in a debate with him, she got him speaking in depth. Job done.

Totally disagree. She didn't let him explain in any depth. She kept interrupting him every few seconds. He never got to finish this point on childish men because she moved him off on a tangent or two.

She misquoted him a few times and paraphrased him incorrectly often. Kept saying "So you are saying......." as if she was having trouble understanding his analysis or trying to dumb it down.

This guy can expend and talk at length on his hypotheses. He is interesting even if you don't agree with him. If it was a case of not giving him a platform or allowing his ideas to propagate, well just don't invite him on.

A Little Pony

Brian? wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Can you name one who would be able to beat Peterson in a debate arguing about patriarchy, gender pay gap and other such nonsense?

No I can’t name the winner of a debate before the debate occurs. I’m not clairvoyant.

You still can't give a name of any feminists who could stand with Dr Peterson in any debate. This is literally Dr Peterson's life work. He is a clinical psychologist. His dismantling of opportunity of outcome as one such example in the interview. 

If I was feminist I would look to avoid at all costs, they don't need that work as they would say in boxing.

cantdecide

This is like that scene in Oh Brother Where Art Thou

Start at 0:50 (I can't get the delay thing to work)

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

Yes. He said it was one of the ways. But it was the only way he offered..

So you admit he said women being less agreeable is one of many ways to combat the gender pay gap, but because he did not give a blow by blow peer reviewed account on all the other ways, while may I add, being interrupted by the interviewer, you said that "It’s the only actual solution to any problem he suggests" and you "find this hilarious"?

Sounds to me the interviewer did a bad job then of not probing more deeply this topic but instead want to try and get him in a 'Gotcha' moment which backfired completely leaving her professionally discredited as a professional journalist.

Max Prophet

silverharp wrote: »

family photo, I think I know who wears the pants in that family, the comment about women wanting men they can dominate takes on a new meaning now :pac:

Wow she's snagged herself a nice girly-man anyway !

xckjoo

Brian? wrote: »

An interviewer doesn’t debate an interviewee. That’s not their job. Their job is to extract the maximum amount from the subject. She actually does an extremely good job of it, as acknowledged by Peterson around 27 mins before the pause.

This game s a consistent issue I find with fanboys and of right wing speakers. They often crow about how their heros “crush” or “destroy” their interviewers. Everything is adversarial, for no apparent reason. Milo fanboys are the worst for it.

I was quite impressed with Peterson as a speaker until the mask slips towards the end. I agree with a large part of what he says, yet I would consider myself a feminist. His bias is clear at points though. He’s made his mind up and is falling into the trap of arguing from the position of “eminence” towards the end, hence the “I’m a clinical psychologist “ line. His title gives him no right to judge, it’s at odds with the rest of the interview.

His attack on “cultural Marxism” and conflating feminism with it is tiresome.

Ironically his only solution for any gender disparity is for women to be less agreeable. I find this hilarious. If you listen it’s the only actual solution to any problem he suggests. Everything else he says is exposition on the problems.

His point was that the pay-gap (I assume this is the gender disparity you're talking about) is not due to gender alone but is a multifaceted issue. One of the issues is that women are generally more agreeable, which makes them less likely to fight for pay rises, etc. He also mentions that women are more likely to chose a career that pays less, which contributes to the overall income gap between men and women. So you're looking for him to provide a solution to a problem that he doesn't think exists.

Ush1

Brian? wrote: »

I’d agree if she did a investigative piece on Peterson. But she didn’t. She interviewed him and allowed him to speak for himself with no edits.

That's exactly how it played out. As an interview, it was awful. Speaking over the guest, constantly misquoting or misrepresenting points, long awkward pauses while she needed to think, etc....

I mean, how you think she did a good job is beyond me. If a viewer knew nothing of the subject matter they would still be pretty clueless after. This is in no way cheerleading Peterson either as all he could do was respond to what was being asked.