Dear Sunday Times;

I did myself the favour of listening to the Decca Aitkenhead interview with Jordan Peterson uncut (followed by the conversation with his daughter) on his Youtube channel last evening before venturing to the Sunday Times. It may interest your editors to know it received over 321k views in the first 24 hours, and given the popularity of Dr.Peterson’s channel, millions more are sure to follow.

“I don’t know if this is a story about drug dependency, or doctors, or Peterson family dynamics — or a parable about toxic masculinity. Whatever else it is, it’s very strange. …”

My reason for writing isn’t to ask why your editors permitted such a dishonest and slanted account of the conversation to pass to your pages — that much is self evident in this age of agenda driven pseudo-journalism.

My question is much more basic than that, because what you have done is quite inexplicable.

What on earth led The Times and writer Decca Aitkenhead to believe that her deception would pass unrevealed? Did she not know the interview was being recorded? Or was The Times not aware that Dr.Peterson’s audience reach dwarfs your own?

21 Replies to “Dear Sunday Times;”

  1. You’ve got to remember that these journalists are just simple liberals.
    These are people of the Swamp.
    The common clay of the Marxist education system.

    You know… morons.

    1. This is where I find a huge area of media infusion that all masculinity is toxic and must be eradicated.
      Being a proper father to children is the job of having rules and boundaries in a time when the media wants no boundaries to even a child’s identity.
      Your children all have different personalities and a good parent can adjust and adapt to this.
      The media and psychologists would disagree and want all treated the same which ends up in a failed society social structure.
      Animals have male and female and a structured environment.
      And yet our politicians and media want everyone the same no matter what gender you are.
      Hence, the attraction of President Trump and his leadership abilities is by authority which works very well against the media.

    2. One thing about the terminally stupid Kate, you are probably correct they won’t reply and primarily because it would require thought.

  2. It was a well written complaint though Kate. Good job and thanks for taking the time to compose and send it!

  3. Are they just preaching to their choir?
    They understand that normal people know that they are liars but they also know how stunned and ignorant their own audience is.

    1. Two people that I know that still subscribe to the Times-like publications are both very well educated one a Harvard MBA obtained in the early 1960s and the other a PhD including an advanced degree from Columbia. Both firmly believe that the Russians interfered in the 2016 US election on behalf of Trump and that that interference resulted in Trump winning an election he would not have otherwise won.

      Both were born and raised in Anglophone families in Montreal. Both would not vote for Trudeau. They have always trusted the print media and continue to do so; except with respect to Trudeau.

      I don’t understand how they believe these publications on most things but on something of which they have personal knowledge they can see the lie.

      For me it does not compute.

  4. My name is Thud and while I hate to admit it I suffer from toxic masculinity. It got so bad I even changed a tire for a young lady. It was years ago but I still feel her pain and embarrassment.

  5. Kate…that was a rhetorical question…right?
    They believe their deception would not be revealed because the left and MSM have been given a free pass on the deception for a long time.

    They did it to Palin, Trump, and others. They will continue unchecked.

  6. What’s troubling to me is not that they lied about Dr. Petersen. We all knew they were going to do that, it’s no surprise. And a sloppy, idiotic lie as well.

    What troubles me is that they lie exactly the same about EVERYTHING they cover, and we only caught them on this one.

    1. What troubles me is that they lie exactly the same about EVERYTHING they cover, and we only caught them on this one.
      Gell-Mann amnesia effect.  World’s full of it.

  7. They just don’t care. They really don’t.

    It is all about acquiring and exercising power.

    The chief purpose of that power is destruction.

    Did this, to even some small degree, hurt Jordan Peterson and/or his potential audience? Yes, it did. That’s all that matters. That’s their version of success. That end justifies any and all means.

  8. I wonder what their intention was in doing this. Was it a smear? Maybe it was just incompetence.

    1. They view Dr. Peterson as an enemy, so anything they can twist or lie about to make him look bad, they will. As they do with all things.

      But this time they’re getting some pushback from all the people who know they lied. Most of the time the lies pass unremarked.

  9. This is fundamental to understanding the media environment.

    Of course she knows, so do her employers. It doesn’t matter.

    She and the publication she writes for is serving their subscriber base. They are being told what they want to hear, and will hear it gladly, agree with it and tell everyone they know how much the know. They will look down with arrogance at those who don’t agree with them. They are in places of power and influence and will make decisions based upon what they are told. Nothing they read or watch challenges what they already think and believe.

    This has always been the case with media, the only difference was that a newspaper needed a very wide subscriber base in a limited geographical area. To reflect back what that wide subscriber base experienced required exposing them to something much closer to reality because their audience viewpoints were much wider.

    Now media can only survive by serving a very narrow subscriber base not connected to a geographic area. Narrow in interest, viewpoint, social strata. So they serve them, serve them well. Why would anyone even read an article whose purpose is to destroy someone? Because they like that type of thing. So the media gives them what they want.

    This should frighten you. The people making decisions have no idea what is going on, and their arrogance is being amplified by the media feeding them confirmation.

  10. I’m confused as to why anybody is confused here. The Times is free to print whatever it wants to about Jordan Peterson, it’s not like any of their readership knows who Jordan Peterson is or anybody who follows Jordan Peterson reads the Times. You might as well have a Maori explaining to an Eskimo all about Uighurs. Who’s going to fact-check that ball of nonsense? Who cares?