Cathy Newman Biography
Cathy Newman (Catherine Elizabeth Newman) is an English journalist and presenter of Channel 4 News. She began her career as a newspaper journalist. She has worked in a number of stations including Media Week, The Independent, the Financial Times and The Washington Post. She has worked on Channel 4 News since 2006. Initially, she started as a correspondent and in 2011, she was promoted to become a presenter.
Before changing her plans to become a journalist, she wanted to be a violinist or a lawyer. She changed her plans after seeing BBC journalist Kate Adie on television. She studied English at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford and graduated with first-class honours. After her university studies, she briefly worked on The Guardian’ Books section. Then at Media Week as a trainee.
She later joined The Independent as a media business correspondent. Later, at the age of 23, she joined the Financial Times. For three years she worked as a media and political correspodent with Alice Rawsthorn acting as her mentor. Newman began a television career in 2000.
She gained a Laurence Stern fellowship to work at The Washington Post for four months. During her period in the US, she followed the 2000 Presidential campaign of Green Party candidate Ralph Nader. In January 2006, she joined Channel 4 News as a political correspondent and deputy to political editor Gary Gibbon.
From 2013 to 2015, Newman pursued a story about the allegations of improper conduct levelled at Lord Rennard. On 27th February 2013 she questioned deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg on the issue. Newman has commented that sexism was endemic at Westminster during her period as a lobby correspondent there, but has also said that the newspaper industry is even worse.
She is also a regular commentator on politics in other media outlets. She has appeared as a guest panelist on Have I Got News for You and blogs for The Daily Telegraph and Economia magazine. Newman was long-listed for the Orwell Prize (Journalism) in 2010 and again in 2011 for the blog prize.
In 2015, she was announced as one of the judges for the Baileys Women’s Prize for Fiction. Her book, Bloody Brilliant Women, concerning significant, but unheralded, 20th-century women was published in autumn 2018. In January 2018, Newman interviewed the Canadian psychologist and professor of psychology Jordan Peterson, who is known for his criticism of political correctness.
Cathy Newman Age
Cathy was born in Guildford, Surrey, England, United Kingdom. She was born on 14th July 1974. Her current age is 45 years old as of 2019.
Cathy Newman Net Worth
Cathy has been a media personality for a long time now. She has a lot of experience in television. She has made a huge fortune from her career. We however do not have any information about her current salary. Her net worth is also currently under review. We will update you once we get the actual information.
Cathy Newman Husband
Cathy Newman got married to her husband John O’Connell in 2001. John is a writer. The two met at the university. The couple has two daughters and live in London. Details about their daughters are not well known. The family is living happily together. There are no signs of a breakup any time soon.
Cathy Newman Memes | Cathy Newman So You’re Saying
Cathy Newman Peterson | Cathy Newman Backlash | Cathy Newman Vs Jordan Peterson | Cathy Newman Jordan Peterson Interview
Cathy Newman: Jordan Peterson you’ve said that men need to, quote, “grow the hell up.” Tell me why.
Jordan Peterson: Well because there’s nothing uglier than an old infant. There’s nothing good about it. People who don’t grow up don’t find the sort of meaning in their life that sustains them through difficult times and they are certain to encounter difficult times and they’re left bitter and resentful and without purpose and adrift and hostile and resentful and vengeful and arrogant and deceitful and of no use to themselves and of no use to anyone else and no partner for a woman and there’s nothing in it that’s good.
Cathy Newman: So you said… I mean, that sounds pretty bad… you are saying that there’s a crisis of masculinity. I mean, what do you do about it?
Peterson: You tell… you help people understand why it’s necessary and important for them to grow up and adopt responsibilities why that isn’t a shake your finger and get your act together sort of thing why it’s more like but why it’s more like a delineation of the kind of destiny that makes life worth living. I’ve been telling young men… but it’s not I wasn’t specifically aiming this message at young men to begin with it just kind of turned out that way.
Cathy Newman: And it’s mostly—you admit—it’s mostly men listening. I mean 90% of your audience is male, right?
Peterson: Well, it’s about 80 percent on YouTube which is a… YouTube is a male domain primarily, so it’s hard to tell how much of it is because YouTube is male and how how much of it is because of what I’m saying, but what I’ve been telling young men is that there’s an actual reason why they need to grow up, which is that they have something to offer, you know, that people have within them this capacity to set the world straight and that’s necessary to manifest in the world and that also doing so is where you find the meaning that sustains you in life.
Cathy Newman: So what’s gone wrong then?
Peterson: Oh god, all sorts of things have gone wrong. I think that… I don’t think that young men are here words of encouragement some some of them never in their entire lives as far as I can tell, that’s what they tell me, and the fact that the words that I’ve been speaking, the YouTube lectures that I’ve done and put online for example, have had such a dramatic impact is indication that young men are starving for this sort of message because, like why in the world would they have to derive it from a lecture on YouTube? Now they’re not being taught that it’s important to develop yourself.
Cathy Newman: It doesn’t bother you that your audience is predominantly male. Isn’t that a bit divisive?
Peterson: No, I don’t think so. I mean, it’s no more divisive than the fact that YouTube is primarily male and Tumblr is primarily female.
Cathy Newman: But you’re just saying that’s the way it is.
Peterson: I’m not saying anything. It’s just an observation that that’s the way it is. There’s plenty of women that are watching my lectures and coming to my talks and buy my books it’s just that the majority of them happen to be men.
Cathy Newman: What’s in it for the women, though?
Peterson: Well, what sort of partner do you want? Do you want an overgrown child? Or do you want someone to contend with, who is going to help you?
Cathy Newman: So you’re saying, that women have some sort of duty to help fix the crisis of masculinity.
Peterson: It depends on what they want. It’s exactly how I laid it out. Women want deeply men who are competent and powerful. And I don’t mean power in that they can exert tyrannical control over others. That’s not power. That’s just corruption. Power is competence. And why in the world would you not want a competent partner? Well, I know why, actually, you can’t dominate a competent partner. So if you want domination—
Cathy Newman: So you’re saying women want to dominate, is that what you’re saying?
Peterson: No, I’d say women who have had impaired their relationships with men, impaired and who are afraid of such relationships will settle for a weak partner because they can dominate them. But it’s a suboptimal solution.
Cathy Newman: Do you think that’s what a lot of women are doing?
Peterson: I think there’s a substantial minority of women who do that and I think it’s very bad for them. They’re very unhappy, it’s very bad for their partners–although the partners get the advantage of not having to take any responsibility.
Cathy Newman: What gives you the right to say that? I mean, maybe that’s how women want their relationships those women. I mean you’re making these vast generalizations.
Peterson: I’m a clinical psychologist.
Cathy Newman: Right so you’ve you’re saying you’ve done your research and women are unhappy dominating men.
Peterson: I didn’t say they were unhappy dominating men, I said it was a bad long-term solution
Cathy Newman: Let me come back to my question: Is gender equality a myth?
Peterson: I don’t know what you mean by the question. Men and women aren’t the same. And they won’t be the same. That doesn’t mean that they can’t be treated fairly.
Cathy Newman: Is gender equality desirable?
Peterson: If it means equality of outcome then it is almost certainly undesirable. That’s already been demonstrated in Scandinavia. Because in Scandinavia…
Cathy Newman: What do you mean by that? “Equality of outcome is undesirable.”
Peterson: Men and women won’t sort themselves into the same categories if you leave them to do it of their own accord. In Scandinavia it’s 20 to 1 female nurses to male, something like that–it might not be that extreme. And approximately the same male engineers to female engineers. That’s a consequence of the free choice of men and women in the societies that have gone farther than any other societies to make gender equality the purpose of the law. Those are ineradicable differences––you can eradicate them with tremendous social pressure, and tyranny, but if you leave men and women to make their own choices you will not get equal outcomes.
Newman: Right, so you’re saying that anyone who believes in equality, whether you call them feminists or whatever you want to call them, should basically give up because it ain’t going to happen.
Peterson: Only if they’re aiming at equality of outcome.
Cathy Newman: So you’re saying give people equality of opportunity, that’s fine.
Peterson: It’s not only fine, it’s eminently desirable for everyone, for individuals and for societies.
Cathy Newman: Are women less intelligent than men?
Peterson: No, they’re not. No, that’s pretty clear. The average IQ for a woman and the average IQ for a man is identical. There is some debate about the flatness of the distribution. Which is something that James D’Amore pointed out, for example, in his memo. But there’s no difference at all in general cognitive ability. There’s no difference to speak of in conscientiousness. Women are a bit more orderly than men and men are a little bit more industrious than women. The difference isn’t big.
Cathy Newman: Feminine traits. Why are they not desirable at the top?
Peterson: It’s hard to say. I’m just laying out the empirical evidence. We know the traits that predict success.
Cathy Newman: But we also know because companies by and large have not been dominated by women over the centuries. We have nothing to compare it to. It’s an experiment.
Peterson: True. And it could be the case that if companies modified their behavior and became more feminine they would be successful. But there’s no evidence for it.
Cathy Newman: You seem doubtful about that.
Peterson: I’m not neither doubtful nor non doubtful. There’s no evidence for it.
Cathy Newman: So why not give it a go as the radical evidence…
Peterson: Because the evidence suggests… Well, it’s fine. If someone wants to start a company and make it more feminine and compassionate, let’s say, and caring in its overall orientation towards its workers and towards the marketplace, that’s a perfectly reasonable experiment to run. My point is that there is no evidence that those traits predict success in the workplace and there’s evidence…
Cathy Newman: Because it’s never been tried.
Peterson: Well, that’s not really the case. Women have been in the workplace for at least–ever since I’ve been around the representation of women in the workplace has been about 50 percent. So we’ve run the experiment for a fairly reasonable period of time. But certainly not for centuries.
Cathy Newman: Let me move on to another debate that’s been very controversial for you. You got in trouble for refusing to call trans men and women by their preferred personal pronouns.
Peterson: No, that’s not actually true. I got in trouble because I said I would not follow that compelled speech dictates of the federal and provincial government. I actually never got in trouble for not calling anyone anything.
Cathy Newman: Under Mao millions of people die. I mean, there’s no comparison between Mao and a trans activist, is there.
Peterson: Why not?
Cathy Newman: Because trans activist aren’t killing millions of people.
Peterson: The philosophy that’s guiding their utterances is the same philosophy.
Cathy Newman: The consequences are…
Peterson: Not yet.
Cathy Newman: You’re saying that trans activists could lead to the deaths of millions of people?
Peterson: No, I’m saying that the philosophy that drives their utterances is the same philosophy that already has driven us to the deaths of millions of people.
Cathy Newman: Okay, tell us how that philosophy is in any way comparable.
Peterson: Sure, that’s no problem. The first thing is that their philosophy presumes that group identity is paramount. That’s the fundamental philosophy that drove the Soviet Union and Mao is China. And it’s the fundamental philosophy of the left-wing activists. It’s identity politics. Doesn’t matter who you are as an individual, it matters who you are in terms of your group identity.
Cathy Newman: You’re just saying so to provoke, aren’t you? I mean, you are a provocateur.
Peterson: I never say say anything…
Cathy Newman: You’re like the old right that you hate to be compared to. You want to stir things up.
Peterson: I’m only a provocateur insofar as when I say what I believe to be true it’s provocative. I don’t provoke. Maybe for humor.
Cathy Newman: You don’t set out to provoke.
Peterson: I’m not interested in provoking.
Cathy Newman: What about the thing about, you know, fighting and the lobster. Tell us about the lobster.
Peterson: Ha, well that’s quite a segue! Well, the first chapter I have in my book is called “Stand up straight with your shoulders back” and it’s an injunction to be combative, not least to further your career, let’s say. But also to adopt a stance of ready engagement with the world and to reflect that in your posture. And the reason that I write about lobsters is because there’s this idea that hierarchical structures are a sociological construct of the Western patriarchy. And that is so untrue that it’s almost unbelievable. I use the lobster as an example: We diverged from lobsters evolutionary history about 350 million years ago. Common ancestor. And lobsters exist in hierarchies. They have a nervous system attuned to the hierarchy. And that nervous system runs on serotonin, just like our nervous system do. The nervous system of the lobster and the human being is so similar that anti-depressants work on lobsters. And it’s part of my attempt to demonstrate that the idea of hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with socio-cultural construction, which it doesn’t.
Cathy Newman: Let me get this straight. You’re saying that we should organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters?
Peterson: I’m saying it is inevitable that there will be continuities in the way that animals and human beings organize their structures. It’s absolutely inevitable, and there is one-third of a billion years of evolutionary history behind that … It’s a long time. You have a mechanism in your brain that runs on serotonin that’s similar to the lobster mechanism that tracks your status—and the higher your status, the better your emotions are regulated. So as your serotonin levels increase you feel more positive emotion and less negative emotion.
Cathy Newman: So you’re saying like the lobsters, we’re hard-wired as men and women to do certain things, to sort of run along tram lines, and there’s nothing we can do about it.
Peterson: No, I’m not saying there’s nothing we can do about it, because it’s like in a chess game, right, there’s lots of things you can do, although you can’t break the rules of the chess game and continue to play chess. Your biological nature is somewhat like that, it sets the rules of the game, but within those rules you have a lot of leeway. But one thing we can’t do is say that hierarchical organisation is a consequence of the capitalist patriarchy, it’s like that’s patently absurd. It’s wrong. It’s not a matter of opinion, it’s seriously wrong.