Cathy Newman’s feminist fans aimed 30 times more violent sexist abuse at Peterson & his supporters than vice-versa

By now you can’t have missed Cathy Newman’s car crash interview with the amazing Jordan Peterson. Newman was utterly humiliated, throughout and was made to look even more foolish than in her 2016 “interview” of Milo Yiannopoulos, after which we exposed an elected Labour Member of Parliament advocated punching Milo. Ironically, that same MP, Anna Turley,  is also the lead figure behind a proposed “social Media Malicious Communications Bill!”

Newman and Channel 4 are using the age old feminist tactic of crying “abuse” when they lose a debate,  a tactic used superbly by jess Phillips to divert attention away from her sexist and childish campaign to try to stop men’s issues being debated in Parliament. Later, in 2016 Philips again played the victim when Youtuber Sargon of Akaad said he wouldn’t rape her, and she somehow counted every retweet or reply or disagreement as examples of abuse, making an impressively nonsensical total of 5,000.

We documented Phillip’s lies in 2015 and given the complete lack of evidence cited by Newman and Channel 4 pertaining to supposed abuse, it’s worth examining this case too.

We searched Twitter for a number of violence-related keywords which included the username @cathynewman and the results were everything you’d expect:

1. Slap / slapped

Five relevant results, two of which refer to Newman having being “slapped down” metaphorically and another stating “You wouldn’t know journalistic integrity if it slapped you several times with a sign saying “journalistic integrity”.  The only remotely violent tweets included one suggested Newman looked like she wanted to slap Peterson and a finally one genuinely violent message from a supporter of Newman wanting her to slap Peterson

2 Rape / raped

A number of tweets complaining about supposed rape threats made to Newman, but again zero evidence. In terms of comments directed at Newman/Peterson just three relevant results. One merely stated Newman had been “intellectually raped” in the interview, a further post sarcastically stated “It was disgraceful how he raped her with his man words.” and a third describe the interview as “that shit was just downright rape.” No violent or threatening messsages whatsoever, though one amusing tweet to a mild critic of Newman did note that  she “might send the cops on you for sexual assault, rape and abuse..”

3. Smack / smacked

Five relevant results, three of which referred to Newman being “verbally smacked around”, smacked down logically etc. Only two tweets may possibly concern physical smacking, one stating it should not happen (remind anyone of Jess Phillips there?) and another stating of the interview “The only way it could’ve been more humiliating is if he had flipped her over his knee and gave her a smack live on air.”

4. Kill / killed

A number of tweets use this term, but non in a relevant violent sense other than “kill all men”. Several tweets correctly explaining the the phrase “RIP Cathy Newman” is not a threat and refers to her getting killed in the debate. Several earlier tweets also mention Newman  having been “killed in the debate” and others note that Newman had “killed feminism”. A further tweets suggest Newman is deliberately misinterpreting non-threatening tweets in exactly the same fashion she misinterpreted all Peterson’s answers.

We did find one slightly aggressive and strange tweet to Newman suggesting “Penance will be handed to you by the intelligences, until you make amends 4 lying.”, though such content is clearly incredibly tame by Twitter standards.

5. Hit

Most tweets related to this term correctly refer to Newman’s interview as an attempted hit piece. One tweet tells Newman “you wouldn’t recognise free speech if someone hit you with it”. We did finally found our very first remotely violent content concerning Newsman, a tweet by “Lady Cthulhu” reading as follows :

“I’m trying to rewatch the Jordan Peterson/Cathy Newman debate and I have NO idea how he kept his cool after she intentionally kept misrepresenting what he was saying. He spent half the interview correcting her about his arguments. I would’ve hit her -.- “

6. Die / dead

Most results referred to journalism being dead thanks to Newman’s interview and some to Newman having died inside during the interview. The only violent tweet was by RJonesUX, a defender of Newman, who wrote the following

RJones - Newman

The above tweet was retweeted twice and liked 4 times.

6. Murder / murdered

A number of tweets metaphorically liken Peterson’s humiliation of Newman to a murder due to the comprehensive nature of his victory. One suggests he should be arrested for murder, another describes it as a “snuff film” and one account questions why Newman would retweet her own murder. Two go marginally further in indicating that Newman had died as a result of the murder by Peterson, but each an every tweet is clearly sarcastic and it’s crystal clear that they’re mocking Newman and not remotely threatening or even angry.

7. Punch / punched

We found the most instances of this term being used violently. One Twitter account with 8 followerrs implied that Newman was an example of the type of feminist “that should be punched in the mouth but isn’t.”

An account named “Williamjohnbird” with rather more follows stated “Never forget is flippin’ marvellous. That guy she interviewed was just grotesque. Must have taken huge self-control not to punch his smug face live on air. “

Kate Bevan

Kate Bevan1
Perhaps most significantly of all, Bevan’s tweet was retweeted seven times and liked 45 times, which contrasts hugely to all the other content, most of which was not retweeted or liked by anyone. For good measure Bevan (who previously wrote for the Guardian) followed up her initial tweet with a clarification saying “I would have punched him.”, thus leaving no one in any doubt that she supported violence against Peterson for winning the debate.

So, in summary we found two slightly violent tweets directed at Newman, one by a woman who states she would have hit Newman had she been subject to the same treatment Peterson had received at her hands and another indicating that kind of action might be appropriate (but didn’t happen).

In contrast, we found one Newman supporter wanting her to slap Peterson, another individual telling her critics to “go fuck themselves” (twice) and then to “go die in a fire”. Finally we found two Newman supporters wanting Peterson to be punched, including a verified Twitter account belonging to journalist Kate Bevan. Her total of two violent tweets concerning Peterson single handedly match all the similar tweets aimed at Newman and in total they were repeated through likes/retweets a total of 52 times (note unlike Phillips, we didn’t count all the replies and their rewteets calling out Bevan’s violence).

It’s of note that none of the tweets we saw used remotely misogynistic language as claimed by Newman/Channel 4 and the only sexism combined with violence was from journalist Kate Bevan and aimed at Peterson.

Adding up all the tweets, retweets and likes we find the following totals:

Non-sexist violence aimed at Newman or her supporters: 2

Sexist violence aimed at Newman or her supporters: 0

Non-sexist violence aimed at Peterson or his supporters: 8

Sexist violence aimed at Peterson or his supporters: 55


So, as per the headline, that’s over 30 times more abuse directed at Peterson and his supporters, and of course most of it from a verified Twitter account and its followers. One has to wonder what Channel 4 will be doing about that?


If you enjoy our work, please consider making a donation. Many thanks.


Update, this post is getting a huge amount of attention online, including from Jordan Oeterdon himself. We’ve noticed people have a number of queries about our methodology so will deal with the most common questions below:

1. Why did you only search for violent terms, and not words such as “bitch”?

– The purpose of our research was to look for content directed at Peterson/Newman that could necessitate police involvement. We did this because Newman claims to have called in the police. Quite simply, it’s ok to call the police if someone threatens violence, whereas mere name calling is not a threat and so not a police matter.

2. Couldn’t the worst  tweets have been deleted by now?

– this is indeed possible, although seeing as all the above tweets were sent to Newman then all the violent tweets towards Peterson would have been spotted too. Therefore there is either still far more violent abuse directed at Peterson than Newman OR there is a double standard at Twitter and they only delete violent content directed st feminists/women and think the same abuse aimed at men is acceptable.

3. Bevan’s tweet doesn’t fully support violence against Peterson.

– Taken in isolation this could be correct, but she makes her position clear in her follow up tweet where she states she would have assaulted him.


54 thoughts on “Cathy Newman’s feminist fans aimed 30 times more violent sexist abuse at Peterson & his supporters than vice-versa

  1. OMG that interview was a total train-wreck for her. Was she not listening to anything he was saying? How could she ask so many stupid questions even after he just answered one of her stupid questions, she asked a more stupid question. I must say, if I was that man, I would have taken off the microphone, said “You’re not listening to anything I’m saying” and walked out. If it was her support staff in the booth feeding her the questions, they need to change to another program, preferably a kids show where the audience wants silly statements like “We should be like LOBSTERS!”

  2. Great article, and good work. Somehow every time Peterson’s enemies try to get one over on him, they just end up looking even more pathetic.

  3. That’s a pretty comprehensive look at where the violence is coming from. Now, as Jordan often says,

    “Clean your room”: let’s get violence aimed at Newman down to 0.

    In the same vein as “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” or “complain not about the mote in your neighbor’s eye when you have a beam in your own eye.”

  4. Bravo! That’s tedious work, which I suppose Channel 4 thought no one would perform. Thank you for putting forth the effort and providing the clear report of your findings.

  5. Great work. It’s troubling to see how the whole saga has been spun since. It cold have been an enthralling and open conversation about a clearly controversial topic. Instead, all chances of that were obliterated by Newman. Peterson’s point stood strong despite. Compliments to the man. Many ”tv personalities” in the UK could take some articulation lessons from him.

  6. Interesting as all this undoubtedly is long before the Internet was invented I came to the conclusion that ‘my’ side was as likely to have crazed loons on board as ‘their’ side was. Which is to say defending or advocating a set of ideas doesn’t require us to defend everybody on our team. There is a basic form for civil discourse which everyone is obliged to adhere to absolutely all the time. If ‘our’ guys step out of line it is us and not our opponents who should come down heaviest upon them.

  7. Pingback: Busted: Jordan Peterson Received More Violent Threats Than Cathy Newman After Controversial Interview  Dark Politricks

  8. Pingback: Busted: Jordan Peterson Received More Violent Threats Than Cathy Newman After Controversial Interview - Telzilla

  9. Pingback: Busted: Jordan Peterson Received More Violent Threats Than Cathy Newman After Controversial Interview – The San Andreas Times

  10. Pingback: Jordan Peterson, Cathy Newman and Online Abuse | Godless Spellchecker's Blog

  11. Hi hequal, nice job. I seem to remember however, that the fuss made by Newman et al was about comments made in YouTube. In which case, it would be great for you to repeat your investigations with the comments on the YouTube video uploaded to Channel 4’s channel. It would be really interesting if you find similar or different results regardless.

  12. It’s good work that you’ve taken this snapshot quickly after all the news reports of online abuse. If you can do this, well then the mainstream media could have too. Her accusation at the end of the debate was evil. “So you’re not going to say to your followers; now quit the abuse, quit the anger?”

  13. I would point out though that there are currently 57000 comments regarding the interview on Youtube. That doesn’t include any comments already removed by the Channel 4 team, or comments reviewed and removed before even being published.

    There may thus have been legitimately concerning comments made that are not visible to the general public but are worth a follow up by the police. I think it could also be dangerous for Channel 4 to release the details of any such posts as that would jeopardise any future prosecution should one be necessary.

    So while I’m sceptical that Newman is receiving anywhere near the abuse that Peterson already receives online, I think it is appropriate to allow the police investigation (and any subsequent prosecution) to complete before judging the appropriateness of the Channel 4 response.

      • A basic presumption under UK law is that the accused should receive a fair trial. This is far easier if the media have not already pursued a witch hunt and publicly declared or assumed guilt ahead of the trial.

        This is why high profile prosecutions often have minimal reporting until the verdict has been reached, and is both accepted by the media but also enforced through Contempt of Court laws to assure fairness and justice.

        If a prosecution does occur then the defendant is both protected by Channel 4’s current discretion and also unable to claim an unfair trial should they be found guilty. While I strongly doubt a prosecution will occur I do think Channel 4 would be right to avoid sharing too much information should one be possible.

  14. The content of this interview is already being obscured by the victimhood distraction. Jordan Peterson gave an object lesson in how to deal with willfully ignorant people without getting emotional. After all, those of Cathy newman’s ideology base all their responses purely on their feelings.

  15. Pingback: Dr. Jordan Peterson Speaks Truth to Power, Obliterates SJW Ideology | The New Nationalist

  16. Far be it from me to defend a leftist but we have no idea what was or wasn’t said in DMs. Perhaps she is actually getting threatened.

    Somehow I doubt it though. Maybe it’s different when you’re Famous and Important (and British?) but if I got threats the first thing I would do is publicize them. If she got threatened in DMs, I would expect to see some.

    OTOH, even if this criticism applies, it doesn’t detract from your other point, which is “weird how when the threats and sexism is directed towards Peterson, nobody cares”.

    • Why should anyone other than morons really wish to abuse her? Or even make serious threats? Watching her display her bigotry and her stupidity made even me cringe and even sarcasm would have been like kicking a dying dog irrespective of whether or not she deserved it.

  17. The “30 times more” headline implies a level of statistical insight that is unjustified. Your methodology is such that all it would have taken was one single Twitter account anywhere in the world to like & retweet one single violence-endorsing tweet* to drop that figure of about “30 times” down to about “15 times”.

    If instead you had steered clear of any spurious calculations, and used a headline like “We found much more Twitter-based endorsement of violence against Peterson than against Newman, albeit with limited data“, I would say you’d done a great job here.

    * – This one:

    • Quote:
      Your methodology is such that all it would have taken was one single Twitter account anywhere in the world to like & retweet one single violence-endorsing tweet* to drop that figure of about “30 times” down to about “15 times”.

      And this is any better?

    • Ah, you mean the one they included in their report?
      I feel like I’m watching someone intentionally run into a wall infront of a crowd to prove people like to beat them up…

      • DarkAngel, yes one of the tweets they included in their report. I was specifying which one. I stand by my comment. Whoever wrote this blogpost has done some useful work but should bring in someone who understands statistics to explain what kind of conclusions can legitimately be drawn, then edit it accordingly. I have already suggested a suitable title.

  18. Jordon has invited her to sit down with him for a one on one discussion lasting about an hour. Live and streamed on the net. That’s what needs to happen. I hope she accepts the offer.

  19. Good work. thanks for the effort. I’d put money on it that no one at Channel 4 actually did the same.
    The thing about the left is they feel their ends justify any means, which includes compulsive lying.
    For anyone who wants to understand the tactics used by Newman and Channel 4, and the left in general, read Saul Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals”.
    It is devoid of a code of ethics. It empowers leftists to be as subversive and underhanded as possible in destroying law and order.
    And what it does, it accuses its opponents of.
    If there is a Satan, then the left are in bed with it.

  20. Cathy Newman was destroyed. Dr Peterson was patient and articulate during her projection session. She is litterally the worst journalist I have ever seen.

    Shame on her.

  21. Pingback: Jordan Peterson vs Cathy Newman, Part 3: Revenge of the SJW Spin Doctors | ValuBit

  22. Pingback: Newman/Peterson — a few thoughts. – Europhiles4Brexit

  23. Great analysis. This really highlights the blatant double standard applied to abuse against men versus against women, same with conservative/right versus liberal/left. Hegemonic authoritarians playing the part of marginalised victims. It’s utterly warped.

  24. Pingback: Feminist who wants to punch Peterson was a key voice supporting firing of James Damor & previously appeared on Channel 4 News | hequal

  25. Pingback: Et grimt eksempel på ultra feminismen og mediers dømmekraft – Le Club Esp

  26. Pingback: Kill Shot – The Narrative Takes Two to the Chest; Women in the Infantry Myth Firmly Debunked – Free Range International

  27. Pingback: Karen Straughan’s thoughts on the Cathy Newman / Jordan Peterson interview

  28. Pingback: Karen Straughan’s thoughts on the Cathy Newman / Jordan Peterson interview

  29. Pingback: Dr. Jordan Peterson (4) – Libertario

  30. Pingback: Jordan Peterson on himself and Cathy Newman | Life on an alien planet

  31. Wake up; the vilest and most abusive rhetoric is not merely discounted on these tallies, they’re openly encouraged on, and by, the Left.

    These “violent rhetoric” boondoggles are just fool’s errands; the Left baits us into running in circles in efforts to exonerate ourselves from bogus accusations, when anyone with two working gray cells can tell from miles away they have no intention of either proving OR retracting!

    The only correct response to these Bolshevik dog whistles is to feign deafness ’til they get the message.

  32. Pingback: Jordan Peterson interviewet af Cathy Newman på britiske Channel 4

  33. Pingback: Who Is Jordan Peterson? • Reality Dispatch

  34. Pingback: The Cathy Newman Lie - #SeekingTheTruth

  35. Pingback: The Cathy Newman Lie | Citizen Journalist TV

  36. Pingback: Feministyczne uwiedzenie zachodniego społeczeństwa « Dziennik gajowego Maruchy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s