Cathy Newman wants more

Share this:

Famous 2018 So What You’re Saying meme, sensationalist liar and obnoxious feminist nutjob Cathy Newman hit Twitter this week to show us what she found in her social outrage toolbox, other than ignorance.

The first one is a supply issue: it’s certainly not lack of demand. Any and every non-white-male individual attempting to enter politics is immediately granted preselection by their party. Winning the seat is sometimes a challenge, but if in doubt, they’ll just move you to a safe Labour seat.

The second one is an obscure piece of trivia selectively plucked at a time when both the British and Scottish Prime Ministers are both women.

Newman’s third tilt at history is a supply issue too, and I agree with her: we need more women to seek out ceaseless decades of work and obsequiousness as a career instead of conducting 80% of consumer spending.

I’m not sure the combat one is as desirable as she thinks. The pay is terrible, and there have been a couple of thousand deaths in those ranks this century. But you have at it, Cathy.

When contacted for comment, men said they would also like to see some equality in workplace deaths, suicides, sewage and refuse collection jobs, and some income from alimony or modelling.

Cath’s car crash Jordan Peterson interview didn’t lead to her feeling she might need to show some humility for a while.  Newman also isn’t great at demonstrating any comprehension of nuanced or multi-variable issues.  She specialises in being nothing short of obnoxious in her interviews – not that she’s alone there.

In a 2016 interview, Cath laid out what she thinks her interview style is:

“When I started I thought, I’ve got to do it like all the blokes always have… I’ll be a bit of a Paxman. But now I’ve altered my style; I want to be forensic, not aggressive.”

“You don’t always get it right,” she admits. “Sometimes a politician will be droning on and the only way to get in there is to shoutily interrupt. I think for women it’s harder… if you’re aggressive people say, ‘Oh, you’re shrill.’”

Apparently, the best way to not be shrill is to just say “So what you’re saying is…”, then add something that your interviewee didn’t say and never said that suits your own agenda.  If that was considered a “forensic” technique, crime scene forensics would involve giving the nearest four year old an Etch-a-Sketch, and asking them to draw what they think a criminal looks like, and convicting whoever looked like a resemblance.

The interview wasn’t all puff piece: we even got a lovely fashion shoot, and some talk about having fun with clothes and colours:

“I love having fun with clothes and colours,” she tells me later over scrambled eggs. “You don’t want to draw too much attention, but you want people to know that you’re wholeheartedly dedicating yourself to that hour of television. There is a sense of occasion, and your clothing has to reflect that.”

Terrific stuff.





Share this: