That depends on whether society is finally ready to act on this kind of poor reporting/journalism or not. Take a look at these fine memes that the people of the internet have brewed up to illustrate Newman’s complete lack of objectivity.
I wish I could honestly say that they were hyperbolic.
But okay, in all seriousness, the aftermath of this interview really does speak for itself:
The way that this interview has been portrayed, on both sides of the political spectrum, is nothing short of appalling.
I have actually seen a lot of Newman’s work in the past, and she has always remained professional (well, for the most part - some instances are debatable). But, throughout this interview, she illustrated time and time again that she did not have the intellectual nuance for the debate that she was engaged in. She messed up, big time, by coming into this interview with a very clear intent on undermining Peterson and his position on “hot topics” like feminism/the gender pay gap/the relationship dynamics between men and women.
And that intent ultimately destroyed her journalistic integrity, because she clearly has not done her research, nor did she make any attempt to understand his position on these topics without straw-manning the Hell out of them. To make matters worse, she spoke to Jordan amicably and cordially before going on air, and only turned nasty once the cameras started rolling.
To make things very clear: Peterson is not anti-feministic, nor is he transphobic/homophobic/racist/whatever term you want to throw at him to silence debate and discussion. Hell, if you had read through his work, or listened to his many lectures/discourses, you’d know this. He openly admits to being a feminist in many of his lectures, but protests vehemently over what it has turned into today.
As for the backlash: seriously? It’s now misogynistic to call out awful reporting? Or for mocking said awful reporting? No, I’m calling BS.
There are obviously limits to how far you can take mocking someone. Obviously. Calling for her death is entirely indefensible, if indeed it did happen.
However, this is incredibly hard to elucidate, particularly when half of the newspapers in the UK called Peterson an “anti-feminist” purely for disagreeing with left-wing ideology. People are skeptical, and rightly so. Lauding her as a hero who stood against a tide of trolls simply for doing her job is laughable, given she didn’t do her job, and the vast majority of criticism centres around her lack of objectivity and professionalism.
To further the point of how utterly one-sided this all appears to be - I don’t see the political Left complaining when Fox News cops a handful (although they really do deserve it a lot of the time), or when right-wing figureheads get trashed throughout Liberal channels without a chance to offer rebuke in contest (by and large, they don’t deserve it). It’s all ok, because they are nasty, backward people. Right?
Nah, not ok.
Very rarely do you see a positive article about a Republican or conservative in the media, unless it comes from a source not worth listening to. Which is cause for concern in-of-itself. And no, it is not because they are all bad people.
The state of politics and political discourse, as it stands today, is nothing short of concerning. You can shut down your opponents by tagging them with a list of terms (e.g. racist, homophobic, transphobic, libtard, etc.), or by falling back on ideology that is fundamentally designed to be in opposition to bipartisanship, be that Alt-Right/Neo-Marxist/whatever the Hell is in fashion right now.
I sure hope this interview was a watershed moment, because all this noise is starting to scare me.