A controversial clinical psychologist whose interview with a Channel 4 news presenter resulted in her being subjected to a barrage of online abuse has expressed his dismay at the fallout from the encounter.
Cathy Newman’s interview with University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson, who was promoting his new book 12 Rules for Life: an Antidote to Chaos, went viral after Channel 4 posted the full 30-minute footage online last Tuesday. It has been watched almost two million times on YouTube and attracted nearly 50,000 comments. Many are highly critical of Newman, who declared on Twitter that she had “thoroughly enjoyed” the “bout” with Peterson, considered one of Canada’s leading intellectuals. A large number of the comments criticised Newman’s approach to the interview, accusing her of being a “social justice warrior” with a preconceived and misplaced grasp of Peterson’s views.
Ben de Pear, editor of Channel 4 News, told his Twitter followers that Newman had been subjected to “vicious misogynistic abuse” after the interview and that the broadcaster had drafted in security specialists to carry out a risk analysis as part of their duty of care to her.
Mike Deri Smith, deputy head of digital at Channel 4 News, tweeted that a quick search had revealed more than 500 comments calling Newman a “bitch”. Peterson, who is interviewed in today’s Observer magazine, said that when he became aware of the abuse allegations he “immediately tweeted ‘if you’re one of those people doing that, back off’, there’s no excuse for that, no utility’.”
He said the experience had left him trying to put himself in Newman’s position. “There is no doubt that Cathy has been subjected to a withering barrage of criticism online. One of the things I’ve been trying to do is to try to imagine what I’d do if I found myself in her situation and how I would react to it and understand how it was happening. But they’ve provided no evidence that the criticisms constituted threats. There are some nasty cracks online but the idea that this is somehow reflective of a fundamental misogyny and that’s what’s driving this is ridiculous.”
The interview was reported in gladiatorial terms by online commentators, many of whom claimed Peterson had emerged victorious. He said this gave him no satisfaction. “All credit to them [Channel 4 News] for posting the whole thing unedited. I was certain when I left that interview it would be cut to my detriment. I don’t feel like I won. It would have been a more satisfying victory if we had been able to talk about the ideas that are simmering under the surface that are driving this remarkable response to the interview. We missed an opportunity. A cynical person might say, ‘Dr Peterson, you got what you wanted. It’s very good for your book sales.’ That’s all well and good, but in some sense those are kind of stupid victories, given what’s at stake.”
Peterson’s refusal to accept new legislation regarding the use of pronouns at his university saw some hail him as a free speech martyr and others as an enemy of the transgender movement. He has gained a large following on the American “alt-right”, leading some, he says, to label him wrongly as sympathetic to its views.
“But if people go online and look at what I’m saying it becomes almost instantaneously obvious that’s not only untrue – it’s ridiculously untrue. If I was a rightwing figure that would have been found out long ago. I was at Harvard for six years - it’s hardly a rightwing bastion. I’ve been at the University of Toronto for 25 years; I’ve spent half my time warning people about the dangers of the sort of things that happened in Nazi Germany.”
Peterson said the reaction to the interview was typical of many of the more vitriolic debates now being waged across society. “It’s a little microcosm of those culture wars, which is why people are responding to it so crazily.” A particularly fractious part of the interview centred around the reasons for the gender pay gap. “It’s complicated,” Peterson said. “We need to be sensible and think it through. There are lots of reasons why people are paid differently in the workplace, but we seem incapable of having an adult conversation about it. It’s got to be ‘oh my god, it’s the oppressive patriarchy’. Jesus Christ, man, that’s not the answer to everything.”
He suggested an antidote to ill-informed, short-term social media debate was more nuanced, meditative journalism. “Look at the popularity of longform journalism and podcasts,” he said. “It’s nonsense that young people have a limited attention span, or that there isn’t an audience for the in-depth treatment of something.”
And he has an idea for one such project. “If Cathy is interested, maybe we could model a conversation. That would be a good thing.”