https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/future-of-the-west-should-traditionalists-try-to/id1454511530?i=1000539777548

“A lot of those old things are contemporary innovations” – in re the British monarchy.

And then in the wake of the Peterson/Newman interview came the podcast “So What You’re Saying Is”, which is worth it just for Peter Whittle’s extremely plummy accent, much less the UK conservative culture-war content.

Alternatively, maybe Binger is taking one for the team because you’re never asked to take one for the team if they don’t like you!

Never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to.

(Or is that a movie I dreamt of that somehow got stuck in my head?…)

It really didn’t matter to them what the evidence showed, or what her justifications were.
They already knew what verdict they wanted.
And, in the context, knew that there would be problems for them if Joan were acquitted.

You can find lots of posts on YouTube, but here’s one.
That was back when Friedersdorf was still sane, and he quotes lots of examples from the interview, very disapprovingly because of her highly partisan procedure:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/putting-monsterpaint-onjordan-peterson/550859/
Why Can’t People Hear What Jordan Peterson Is Saying?
A British broadcaster doggedly tried to put words into the academic’s mouth.

Peterson makes a statement. And then the interviewer interjects, “So you’re saying …” and fills in the rest with something that is less defensible, or less carefully qualified, or more extreme, or just totally unrelated to his point. I think my favorite example comes when they begin to talk about lobsters.
…
There are moments when Newman seems earnestly confused, and perhaps is. And yet, if it were merely confusion, would she consistently misinterpret him in the more scandalous, less politically correct, more umbrage-stoking direction?

To conclude, this is neither an endorsement nor a condemnation of Peterson’s views. It is an argument that the effects of the approach used in this interview are pernicious.
…
Lots of culture-war fights are unavoidable––that is, they are rooted in earnest, strongly felt disagreements over the best values or way forward or method of prioritizing goods. The best we can do is have those fights, with rules against eye-gouging.

But there is a way to reduce needless division over the countless disagreements that are inevitable in a pluralistic democracy: get better at accurately characterizing the views of folks with differing opinions, rather than egging them on to offer more extreme statements in interviews; or even worse, distorting their words so that existing divisions seem more intractable or impossible to tolerate than they are. That sort of exaggeration or hyperbolic misrepresentation is epidemic—and addressing it for everyone’s sake is long overdue.

Nobody listened to him, judging by the exponential increase in hyperbolic hysteria over the intervening years.

This was new to me, short but powerful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxP_UDH9jts
Tucker Carlson and Jordan Peterson Discuss the Cathy Newman Fallout

I think that is permissible and I agree, it would be a great, power move.