Connect with us

Everything

Why the media just can’t handle Jordan Peterson

Published

on

Why the media just cant handle Jordan Peterson

Watching the mainstream press try to interview University of Toronto Professor Jordan Peterson, one thing becomes exceedingly clear: they literally can’t even.

While the above expression makes my inner grammar Nazi cry, it is possibly the best description of the predictable sequence of befuddled expressions, desperate strawmen, and whiffed shots fired at Peterson from a growing list of increasingly cautious media personalities.

Cathy Newman’s interrogation of the professor has garnered over five million views, and if one were to judge its contents solely on the consequent collection of memes, pundit reactions, and response/splice videos, one would conclude that Dr. Peterson spent 30 minutes deriding and verbally dominating his interviewer, banging his fists on the table and shouting like right-wing cherry bomb Alex Jones – but that’s not Dr. Peterson’s style.

Instead, the quiet Canadian spent a half-hour discussing free speech, the gender pay gap, and Pepe the frog in such a calm and reasonable manner that even his use of the occasional swear word sounded as though someone swapped “golly gee” out of his script at the last moment.

The interview became a sort of fulcrum for the broader media narrative surrounding Peterson: articles before the interview tried to cast him as a nerdier Milo Yiannopoulos; those since have been notably cautious about casting him as anything.

People familiar with the New Testament might recall a passage from the book of Matthew that details a series of exchanges between Jesus and the Pharisees that concludes with this memorable phrase: “And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.”

Peterson, fond of incorporating biblical themes into his teaching, has almost backed the media into such a corner. In fact, the most recent interviews and articles regard him with a strange blend of cautious hostility and grudging respect.

Their retreat from Peterson stands in stark contrast to their continued onslaught against President Donald Trump, whose inflammatory, braggadocious style has also befuddled – and enraged – the media ranks.

Of course, there’s no love lost between the media and the political right. A brutal Republican primary process established the popular tradition of attacking the media rather than the issue, which would have been difficult enough had the debates not featured Trump and fellow GOP finalist, college debate champ Ted Cruz.

But if mainstream journalists are confounded by Trump’s ability to sidestep policy questions and respond with memeworthy insults, Peterson offers them exactly the opposite problem: he doesn’t present a target at all, but a mirror.

There are several important – and characteristically understated – ways he accomplishes this, and in a nation where fisticuffs and tear gas set the tone of the last year, the political world would do well to learn from his example.

1. He’s intelligent AND humble.

Interviewers are used to handling intelligent people, which is why they go to great lengths to develop “gotcha” questions that force a great mind to remember – and defend – obscure details about things that happened a long time ago. In a more recent interview with CBC’s Wendy Mesley, Dr. Peterson was asked to explain a photo taken of him with a couple students behind a flag of alt-right icon Pepe the frog. The clear intent was to throw Peterson off his game and make him prove that he wasn’t a racist – currently the trendiest version of “do you still beat your wife?”

A quick review of American politics 2015-present will show that many prominent right-leaning voices have stumbled at such an accusation.  The urge to dissociate, obfuscate, and otherwise deflect is so strong that few can even bear the suggestion of the r-word without embarking on a tail-chasing episode of denials.

Peterson’s response showcased a mature brand of humility that’s almost impossible to attack.  He laughed it off in a way that made the audience uncomfortably aware of just how ridiculously serious the interviewer was taking the whole thing. He explained that the picture was one of thousands with students, many of whom brought props, and the whole thing took only seconds.

More profoundly gripping, though, was his later return to the issue when discussing his own future. Asked why he was afraid that things would go terribly wrong with his newfound activism and iconic stature, he responded that he was afraid of saying something inappropriate.  “Why would you say something inappropriate?” Wendy queried.

“Because people make mistakes.”

That simple phrase, and the discussion that followed, not only insulated Peterson against the attacks thrown his way but tapped into the natural empathy of his audience.  Everyone makes mistakes.  We know this.  But somehow our culture has embraced the idea that people on camera should never screw up.

Politicians, journalists, expert consultants, and issue advocates must never say something embarrassing, offensive, or factually incorrect, lest they be shamed forever.  But as Peterson pointed out, when one’s professional life consists of lectures, interviews, vlogging, and Twitter, it’s impossible not to make a mistake, and he knows that time is coming for him too, if it hasn’t already happened.

After all, the wisest man ever to live penned the verse In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin.”

Too many smart people on the right choose to craft immaculate images of themselves, continually raising expectations until the inevitable slip, from which they often don’t recover. Peterson presents an alternative: acknowledge – no, embrace – your humanity, and don’t build that glass house to start with.

 2. He asks them questions – and not just rhetorical ones.

In the above referenced battle between Jesus and the Pharisees, the eventual shutout came when Jesus turned the tables (pun intended) on his interrogators and threw a question they were unprepared for.  This, of course, was the tactic Peterson brought to bear on Newman during the now-famous “gotcha” exchange.

Interviewers are used to being in a position of power over the guest.  They spend hours preparing questions, looking for chinks in the armor that can be exploited for exclusive web hits.  I don’t mean to imply malicious intent – it’s just that media types know what sells, and that’s what they’re digging for.  There’s precious little market for two people having a nice cup of tea and waiting for all of this to blow over.

Interviewers become engaged, even invested, in analyzing the answers as they’re coming in, looking for inconsistencies or problematic wording – and this is why they’re so often unprepared for a question in response.  As it turns out, many of the people interviewing Dr. Peterson aren’t listening to what he’s actually saying, and as a result are totally unprepared to defend their own suppositions when the spotlight is shifted.  And since it alerts the interviewer to the fact that it’s a discussion and not an interrogation, it presents them with a wonderful opportunity to shift gears and join the guest in actually fleshing out the issue at hand.

Every interview has two sides, and if we want to move away from outrage culture and back to reasoned dialogue, then we need to get past the soundbytes and start asking questions to prompt dialogue again, both on and off stage.

3. He ties both the outrageous and the mundane to the eternal.

The “archetypal stories” to which Peterson attributes his popularity capture the imagination of a world bored with the controversy of the current, and provide a connection between our drifting generation and the whole of history.

Think I’m overstating?  Take a stroll down the average Peterson playlist on YouTube. He’s the kind of guy who can weave the story of Hector and Achilles into a discussion about the ethics of online dating without anyone batting an eye.

This ability is, of course, the trademark of a cohesive worldview, something postmodern westerners – and especially millennials – generally lack.

His big-picture application tends to stump people used to debating minutia, and that includes most in the media.  If you ask him whether the gender pay gap is fair, you’re likely to get a response about whether or not it’s good – and he’ll carefully and patiently explain the difference to you.

It’s the type of response that can perpetually frustrate a hostile media, because in raising the bigger questions, Peterson often exposes the shallow nature of such discussions, and the petty, often insincere nature of the questions being flung at him.

Elevating the conversation reminds the audience of something we often forget – that behind the newsfeed trifles that occupy our fancy lie really big, really important questions about meaning, truth, good, evil, wisdom, honor, and faith.  And so doing, it establishes a deeper connection with the audience than the interviewer is capable of duplicating.

In short, no matter what question Peterson is asked, he chooses to talk about things that matter.

Yet if his popularity is a rebuke to the mainstream media, it’s no less a challenge to conservative media to up its game.

While there remains a sizeable niche of people who prefer to watch the Tomi Lahrens of the world point at the camera and make angry faces, there’s a large – and growing – subset of intellectually-hungry millennials looking for something more substantial.

This explains not only the rise of Peterson, but also of thoughtful conservative stars like Ben Shapiro, Steve Deace, and Dinesh D’Souza.  These folks show that moderation does not equal centrism, and that thoughtful answers can disarm liberal rhetoric more effectively than MAGA chants.

And that’s something the media – and the rest of the American Left – just can’t handle.

Continue Reading
4 Comments

4 Comments

  1. Pingback: Why the media just can't handle Jordan Peterson | The Liberty Conservative

  2. Kyle Schutter

    February 10, 2018 at 6:47 pm

    Quite a good article actually. Much more than just sucking up or trying to refute JBP, Joel managed to unearth new information…turn the question back on the interviewer or answer a bigger, more important question.

  3. Ramon Leon

    February 10, 2018 at 7:00 pm

    Great article until the end; Peterson has as many fans on the left as he does on the right, your final sentence is just absurd. The left loves Peterson as much as the right does, they can handle him just fine. You’re conflating journalists with the left, that’s simply wrong, breathtakingly wrong.

    • Bonnie O'Connor

      February 10, 2018 at 11:39 pm

      Here here!
      Agreed!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinions

Republicans can confirm Kavanaugh and still win the midterm elections If they play their cards right

Published

on

If they play their cards right the GOP can confirm Kavanaugh and still win the midterm elections

It would be easy for Americans hearing news from mainstream media and reading awkwardly worded polls to believe that Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation is doomed and the Republicans are set to lose big time during the midterm elections. It’s harder to see that they’re actually in a position of strength if they play their cards right.

Here are their cards:

  1. The first accusation was held by Democrats until the last minute for purely political reasons and is a 36-year-old he-said-she-said.
  2. The second accusation is “lazy at best, slimy at worst” according to critics of the New Yorker story.
  3. With over a month left before midterm elections, there’s plenty of time to confirm Kavanaugh and move the narrative elsewhere.
  4. Last-minute fundraising can skyrocket if they use the Democrats’ derailment tactics against them properly.

It’s the fifth card, though that has the most potential bite. Their trump card (no, not that Trump) is the unwavering support of Keith Ellison and more importantly the backstabbing by Democrats against his accuser, Karen Monahan.

Democrats are all about believing Kavanaugh’s accusers but are silent at best about Ellison’s:

DNC official Keith Ellison’s ex, accusing him of domestic violence, says there’s smear campaign against her

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/23/dnc-official-keith-ellisons-ex-accusing-him-domestic-violence-says-theres-smear-campaign-against-her.htmlRep. Keith Ellison’s ex-girlfriend Karen Monahan on Sunday claimed there’s been a smear campaign against her to help her husband, a top official in the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Monahan, who said he sent her threatening text messages and once screamed obscenities at her as he dragged her off a bed by her feet, wrote on Twitter: “I said this would happen early on. Keith is getting others to write commentary, sharing personal info, like being sexually abused, making false statements about who broke up, how it happened, etc. He will stop at nothing. #WhyIDidntReport victims get smeared, shamed,lied on.”

If Republicans play their fifth card properly with the other four, they can get Kavanaugh confirmed and still have a good shot at retaining full control of the House and Senate after the midterm elections. Ellison represents the type of double-standard endemic in Democratic lawmakers.

What they cannot use is an “if… then…” argument. In other words, they can’t tell Democrats that if they’re willing to believe Kavanaugh’s accuser then they must believe Ellison’s accuser. That would be falling into a trap. Democrats are fully prepared to throw Ellison on his own sword if it means retaking the House and Senate and derailing Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

Instead, Republicans must attack the way Democrats handled Ellison BEFORE the Kavanaugh situation. Putting this into current context gives Democrats an out. However, Republicans can easily demonstrate how Democrats attempted to sweep the Ellison mess under the carpet when it first came out but jumped on board the Kavanaugh-is-a-sexual-deviant train as soon as the option presented itself.

Here’s how a general campaign ad might play out:

“Democrats came out screaming when Brett Kavanaugh’s accusations first emerged, but when the Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee was accused, they defended him and viciously attacked his accuser[show Monahan’s Tweets]. She had witnesses, doctor’s reports, and other evidence that the Democrats tried to quash. Her accusations were dismissed because Democrats will do anything to stand by their man [show image of Ellison screaming].”

Republicans have everything they need to confirm Kavanaugh and still win the midterms. All they need to do is play their cards right.

Continue Reading

Opinions

The GOP’s rock and hard place: Kavanaugh versus midterms

Published

on

The GOPs rock and hard place Kavanaugh versus midterms

Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court is looking less and less likely to ever make it to a vote on the Senate floor because of memories from two drunk teen girls over three decades ago and not a shred of proof otherwise. The bar has been set, at least for Republicans.

That bar is, of course, very different for Democrats like Keith Ellison. Mainstream media and a majority of Democrats are all about “believe the women” accusing Kavanaugh without anything backing up their claims, but extremely credible accusations against Democrats like Keith Ellison are to be dismissed as lies.

That’s the state of affairs in American politics. Last minute accusations can take down a Republican politician or someone nominated by a Republican President.

It should be noted that I’m not a Republican. I’ve found the actions of the GOP to be pitiful considering the amount of control they finally wield. If the situation were reversed and they were using these tactics against Democrats, I’d rail against them just the same. It’s important that anyone reading this understands that I’m not an apologist for the GOP. I’m an apologist for the truth.

With that understood, here’s where we stand. The GOP is stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place. Things were looking bad for Kavanaugh with the first accusation. The court of public opinion was leaning away from his confirmation at that point and is certainly going to take a dive with the newest accusation. Republicans must stay consistent and battle for him even as the Democrats’ narrative shifts a little.

We will go from hearing Democrats calling for FBI investigations and hearing out the accuser to an attempt to establish a behavioral trend. Two is all it takes to establish a “trend” that mainstream media will lock onto at the unofficial request of the Democrats, so this new narrative changes their calculus.

Republicans are stuck preaching the same narrative they were before, that this is all a big trick by the Democrats to stall and potentially derail Kavanaugh’s confirmation. The ground just got more slippery for them, but changing stances at this point will jeopardize the Kavanaugh confirmation even further. They have their story and they must stick to it.

Here’s their bigger problem. By backing Kavanaugh, they’re feeding Democrats all the fodder they need to juice up their base. Female voters in particular will be the targets of their messaging. A higher percentage of female voters came to the polls following the Anita Hill testimony against Clarence Thomas than during Hillary Clinton’s presidential run. Democrats will bank on a repeat of 1992.

Republicans are down to two choices. They could either back Kavanaugh and likely lose a few close midterm races as a result or the could dump Kavanaugh and hope to retain power for confirmation of the next nominee.

Neither choice is good for Republicans.

This new precedent of accuse and derail is very dangerous for all of us regardless of who is getting accused. Kavanaugh’s future is in doubt, which unfortunately means the same is true for American politics.

Continue Reading

Politics

Kavanaugh denies new accusation

Published

on

Kavanaugh denies new accusation

Just when things seemed like they were stabilizing around the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination, another accusation of sexual misconduct dropped. On top of that, Stormy Daniels’ lawyer Michael Avenatti claims to have information about much stronger accusations about to drop.

Kavanaugh denies 2nd accuser’s sexual misconduct allegation as Avenatti claims ‘evidence’ of ‘targeting’ women for gang rape | Fox News

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/23/kavanaugh-denies-2nd-accusers-sexual-misconduct-allegation-as-avenatti-claims-evidence-targeting-women-for-gang-rape.htmlSupreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh faced a storm of new sexual misconduct allegations Sunday after attorney Michael Avenatti said he had knowledge that Kavanaugh and high school friend Mark Judge targeted women with drugs and alcohol in order to “allow a ‘train’ of men to subsequently gang rape them.”

Avenatti, who represents adult film star Stormy Daniels in a lawsuit against President Trump and has hinted at a possible presidential run, made the claims in an email to Mike Davis, the chief counsel for nominations on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He did not state the source of his “evidence” and did not name any alleged victims.

My Take

There are two possibilities here. Either the Democrats and their fans are laying down the biggest set of traps in Senate confirmation history or Kavanaugh was (and maybe still is) a very creepy guy. One or the other is to blame for putting in jeopardy the first opportunity we’ve had to make a real Supreme Court dent on Roe v. Wade and other important issues.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report