Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Saruhashi · 22-01-2018 12:55pm

B0jangles wrote: »

Isn't he the guy who thinks being asked to use a transgender person's preferred pronouns is oppression and a sign of the impending collapse of modern society?

Hahahahahaha.

Wait, I'm not done. Hahahahahahahaha! :pac:

No. That's not what he thinks.

He is against legislation that forces people to use made up pronouns.

FORCES people to use made up pronouns.

FORCES.

You get it? You at least get why he is against it now?

He admits himself that if a student politely requests that he uses whatever pronouns then he will most likely do that out of politeness.

He is against the idea that the government can make it illegal to say "nope, I will not use those pronouns for that person".

Now if your argument is that the legislation doesn't force people to use pronouns then, fine, maybe JP is wrong.

However, hsi being wrong on what the legislation is about does NOT translate to "thinks being asked to use a transgender person's preferred pronouns is oppression and a sign of the impending collapse of modern society".

You Alt-Left people are certainly full of it.

CerebralCortex · 22-01-2018 12:56pm

It burns me that I'm obliged, on the basic of clear reasoning, to have to find myself in agreement with an ideologue ass like Peterson. He's right on the PC gone mad stuff, just as mental himself on about every other topic. His podcasts with Sam Harris are adorable, the guy is cracked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FID366y2gjo

s7ryf3925pivug · 22-01-2018 1:10pm

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

Can't see the likes of C4 or BBC giving him a platform again, he's pretty good at dodging the mud they fling and as such they won't be wanting to broadcast his WrongThink over the air.

Guardian column on why banning people like him from causing offence is a bad idea:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/21/banning-jordan-peterson-causing-offence-cathy-newman-free-speech

Yes there is a need to engage more with positions you find objectionable, especially with articulate and qualified individuals like Peterson.

I was shocked by the emergence of Trump on the back of these 'manosphere' type ideas. I was vaguely aware of some of the movements but thought they were very marginal, laughable, generally not to be taken seriously. Had no idea a large portion of people were buying into this sort of stuff.

Saruhashi · 22-01-2018 1:11pm

20Cent wrote: »

Didn't watch the video

"Didn't watch the video"

Proceeds to tell everyone opinion on the video anyway.

Amazing.

givyjoe · 22-01-2018 1:17pm

Royce Stocky Stage wrote: »

Guardian column on why banning people like him from causing offence is a bad idea:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/21/banning-jordan-peterson-causing-offence-cathy-newman-free-speech

Yes there is a need to engage more with positions you find objectionable, especially with articulate and qualified individuals like Peterson.

I was shocked by the emergence of Trump on the back of these 'manosphere' type ideas. I was vaguely aware of some of the movements but thought they were very marginal, laughable, generally not to be taken seriously. Had no idea a large portion of people were buying into this sort of stuff.

Sorry, what? Do you actually think he said anything in that interview which would cause offence to reasonable minded individuals and not just 'triggered' feminists?

Pelvis · 22-01-2018 1:26pm

givyjoe wrote: »

Sorry, what? Do you actually think he said anything in that interview which would cause offence to reasonable minded individuals and not just 'triggered' feminists?

Eh, well comparing LGBTQ activists to Chairman Mao would probably cause offense to most LGBTQ activists, regardless of his reasoning for it.

I don't necessarily disagree with his reasoning but it's an extremely inflammatory statement.

s7ryf3925pivug · 22-01-2018 1:34pm

givyjoe wrote: »

Sorry, what? Do you actually think he said anything in that interview which would cause offence to reasonable minded individuals and not just 'triggered' feminists?

Not offence, that word was to describe the article I linked to - which I think you didn't read.

I do find some of what he says objectionable. He equates conscientiousness with conservatism, which is at best a generalisation, and more wrong than right. He talks about women wanting to dominate weak men, as though that's a gender issue, and it doesn't happen just as much the other way around. He's an apologist for organised religion, which I see as exploitative, destructive and archaic. His target audience is young men lacking a strong sense of themselves, and I don't like them being filled with ideas that threaten to turn them into wing nuts.

The point is that he shouldn't be dismissed. He should be conversed with. Otherwise you get echo chambers and attitudes like "What? You dislike this stuff!? Are you some sort of snowflake feminazi??"

A Little Pony · 22-01-2018 1:51pm

It was plainly obvious she was aiming to do a hatchet job, failed utterly, got battered and now has to cry about threats to try and make herself look like the victim. It isn't Peterson's fault she has lived a lot of her life in a bubble as far as feminism is concerned. It's as if she didn't realize such views from Dr Peterson existed. Out of her depth.

khaldrogo · 22-01-2018 2:03pm

20Cent wrote:

what's a well adjusted individual?

Someone who lives their on life, sorting out their own issues, treating people with respect, not getting offended for likes on Facebook and someone who drinks Bourbon. Imo

cantdecide · 22-01-2018 2:06pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

It burns me that I'm obliged, on the basic of clear reasoning, to have to find myself in agreement with an ideologue ass like Peterson.

He does nothing but criticise collectivist ideologies. The only ideology that Peterson espouses appears to be individualism. The ideology of personal power, duty, and self reliance.

Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual.[1][2] Individualists promote the exercise of one's goals and desires and so value independence and self-reliance[3] and advocate that interests of the individual should achieve precedence over the state or a social group,[3] while opposing external interference upon one's own interests by society or institutions such as the government.[3] Individualism is often defined in contrast to totalitarianism, collectivism, authoritarianism, communitarianism, statism, tribalism, and more corporate social forms.[4][5]

Sign me up... or not, I suppose!

khaldrogo · 22-01-2018 2:12pm

Shenshen wrote:

However, his replies showed clearly that he had inspected the subject and settled on the first answer that pleased him and complied with his pre-conceived ideas of the world. Yes, there certainly is a difference between men and women in the jobs they choose, and in their levels of "agreeableness". Someone seriously interested in the subject would ask "Why? Where does that come from?", whereas he's perfectly happy to just stop there.

Eh, everytime he tried to elaborate she cut him off or moved subject.
In answer to your question though, 'why do men and women choose different jobs and have different levels of agreeableness?' - because men and women are different. It really is that simple.

weemcd · 22-01-2018 2:13pm

Big fan of Peterson in almost everything I've seen. This was too easy for him, as I imagine he's probably had 10-15 interviews of a similar nature before. The interviewer stumbled into this full of her own self righteous prejudice and fell over repeatedly.

We need people like Peterson to talk more and influence people as we are well on the road to society ruled by nonsense. I'm essentially politically centre-left and economically very left, but I agree with the majority of this man's opinions. The liberal far left cannot deal with his well thought out arguments and logic and have to resort to interviews like this or worse (see the protesters that disrupt his lectures on US/Canadian campus.)

Anyone interested he has a few books out that are on my reading list, along with plenty of lectures available online and a few appearances on well known podcasts.

khaldrogo · 22-01-2018 2:16pm

Arghus wrote:

..........a better interviewer would have been in on top on some of the somewhat nuttier things he had to say.................Some of his assertions were arguable at best - not cast iron fact. And there were a few that sounded a little bit crazy.

Genuinely interested in any examples you heard from him in this interview????

I didnt hear any nutty things myself

givyjoe · 22-01-2018 2:33pm

Royce Stocky Stage wrote: »

Not offence, that word was to describe the article I linked to - which I think you didn't read.

I do find some of what he says objectionable. He equates conscientiousness with conservatism, which is at best a generalisation, and more wrong than right. He talks about women wanting to dominate weak men, as though that's a gender issue, and it doesn't happen just as much the other way around. He's an apologist for organised religion, which I see as exploitative, destructive and archaic. His target audience is young men lacking a strong sense of themselves, and I don't like them being filled with ideas that threaten to turn them into wing nuts.

The point is that he shouldn't be dismissed. He should be conversed with. Otherwise you get echo chambers and attitudes like "What? You dislike this stuff!? Are you some sort of snowflake feminazi??"

I read the beginning. It simply wasn't clear that offence was tied solely to the article and not the interview.

Why would he be dismissed? I'm not seeing where you're coming from in relation to the interview he gave. I don't think he gave anyone, any reason to be dismissed based on that interview.

As for his target audience, I don't think there's too many young men lacking a strong sense of themselves on this thread, and many would seem to see validity in what he said.

xckjoo · 22-01-2018 2:36pm

Royce Stocky Stage wrote: »

Not offence, that word was to describe the article I linked to - which I think you didn't read.

I do find some of what he says objectionable. He equates conscientiousness with conservatism, which is at best a generalisation, and more wrong than right. He talks about women wanting to dominate weak men, as though that's a gender issue, and it doesn't happen just as much the other way around. He's an apologist for organised religion, which I see as exploitative, destructive and archaic. His target audience is young men lacking a strong sense of themselves, and I don't like them being filled with ideas that threaten to turn them into wing nuts.

The point is that he shouldn't be dismissed. He should be conversed with. Otherwise you get echo chambers and attitudes like "What? You dislike this stuff!? Are you some sort of snowflake feminazi??"

I took that more as a comment on what can happen if a "strong" partner isn't found. i.e. if a woman cannot find a partner with good attributes, they'll often end up with someone they can at least control. The "women dominating men" angle seemed more a response to the questions being asked of him than an overall comment on typical gender relations.

As for his stuff about religion, I actually find that really interesting, even though I'm not religious in any way myself. It's not so much commentary on organised religion as it is on the inherent knowledge that exists in religious texts. I've only listened to a few of his talks on the Bible though, so maybe I'm missing his more direct comments on organised religion.

Arne_Saknussem · 22-01-2018 2:36pm

Royce Stocky Stage wrote: »

Guardian column on why banning people like him from causing offence is a bad idea:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/21/banning-jordan-peterson-causing-offence-cathy-newman-free-speech

Yes there is a need to engage more with positions you find objectionable, especially with articulate and qualified individuals like Peterson.

I was shocked by the emergence of Trump on the back of these 'manosphere' type ideas. I was vaguely aware of some of the movements but thought they were very marginal, laughable, generally not to be taken seriously. Had no idea a large portion of people were buying into this sort of stuff.

I didn't find anything he said particularly objectionable, not that i necessarily agree with everything he had to say. He describes himself as a 'classic British liberal' in his political outlook.

I find the interviewers blatant attempts to misrepresent almost everything he said to produce a soundbite that could be used against him, rather than engage with the points he was making, to be far more objectionable than anything he said.

Saruhashi · 22-01-2018 2:40pm

A: Humans separated from a common ancestor with lobsters millions of years ago. As a result of this the human serotonin system is inherited from this common ancestor. Thus humans and lobsters have similar social systems and hierarchies based on this mechanism.

B: So you think humans should run their societies like lobsters?

Wow.

silverharp · 22-01-2018 2:57pm

Saruhashi wrote: »

A: Humans separated from a common ancestor with lobsters millions of years ago. As a result of this the human serotonin system is inherited from this common ancestor. Thus humans and lobsters have similar social systems and hierarchies based on this mechanism.

B: So you think humans should run their societies like lobsters?

Wow.

I thought my sig needed an update...thanks!

Brian? · 22-01-2018 3:50pm

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.

Ush1 · 22-01-2018 3:56pm

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.

Not sure what you were watching, but that "interview" was most certainly adversarial from the beginning, and she definitely lost.

Brian? · 22-01-2018 3:58pm

silverharp wrote: »

I thought my sig needed an update...thanks!

Except that’s a misrepresentation of the conversation. But hey, let’s slice out a quote to make your guy look great.

Brian? · 22-01-2018 4:00pm

Ush1 wrote: »

Not sure what you were watching, but that "interview" was most certainly adversarial from the beginning, and she definitely lost.

It’s an alright interview. Not a debate. That’s my point.

But even C4 are calling it a debate. Which is nonsense.

Ush1 · 22-01-2018 4:04pm

Brian? wrote: »

It’s an alright interview. Not a debate. That’s my point.

But even C4 are calling it a debate. Which is nonsense.

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

Brian? · 22-01-2018 4:14pm

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.

cantdecide · 22-01-2018 4:18pm

Brian? wrote: »

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

It was an interview that descended into a failed ambush based on lack of professionalism and moral outrage. It only became a "debate" after she had her behind expertly handed to her.

silverharp · 22-01-2018 4:19pm

Brian? wrote: »

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.

rare as hen's teeth, he did a 2 hour interview with Camille Paglia which was interesting

A Little Pony · 22-01-2018 4:20pm

Ush1 wrote: »

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.

Not sure what you were watching, but that "interview" was most certainly adversarial from the beginning, and she definitely lost.

She got intellectually smashed to pieces, it was an abattoir and I blame Channel 4 bosses for not doing the research by feeding Cathy Newman to an intellectual giant like Peterson like that. You do not go to a gun fight with a butter knife. If that had lasted another half hour it would have got even worse for her, career ending bad.

MagicIRL · 22-01-2018 4:20pm

I thought her point was the 9% gender pay gap was because of the patriarchy and the patriarchy alone, and Jordan Peterson countered that with facts.

The interviewer couldn't counter his argument and, as such, lost what little debate they had.

Whether or not she was informed does not dictate if it was or wasn't a debate.

One person brought a metaphorical knife to a metaphorical gunfight. And in this case, Jordan Peterson had an AK-47.

Ush1 · 22-01-2018 4:20pm

Brian? wrote: »

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.

Aren't journalists and interviews generally supposed to be impartial to the subject matter.

You said his mask slipped towards the end, that's funny, her mask flipped off her face on to his lap from the opening gambit.

We both know exactly what it was, a weak attempt at misrepresenting things he has said and trapping him to say something overly provocative.

Brian? · 22-01-2018 4:23pm

cantdecide wrote: »

It was an interview that descended into a failed ambush based on lack of professionalism and moral outrage. It only became a "debate" after she had her behind expertly handed to her.

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.

JMNolan · 22-01-2018 4:25pm

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

Horrific interviewing technique to be honest.

givyjoe · 22-01-2018 4:27pm

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 · 22-01-2018 4:27pm

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 · 22-01-2018 4:32pm

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 · 22-01-2018 4:34pm

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? · 22-01-2018 4:35pm

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 · 22-01-2018 4:37pm

Jordan Peterson responds to Channel 4 interview controversy

Brian? · 22-01-2018 4:37pm

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 · 22-01-2018 4:38pm

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? · 22-01-2018 4:40pm

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 · 22-01-2018 4:40pm

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 · 22-01-2018 4:42pm

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 · 22-01-2018 4:42pm

Brian? wrote: »

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

You're joking now right, surely?

markodaly · 22-01-2018 4:43pm

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 · 22-01-2018 4:43pm

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 · 22-01-2018 4:47pm

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 · 22-01-2018 4:48pm

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 · 22-01-2018 4:49pm

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

20Cent · 22-01-2018 4:49pm

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? · 22-01-2018 4:50pm

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.

Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Comments