Restating our opponent's perspective

Social media has been abuzz about an interview of Jordan Peterson by Channel 4 News in the UK. This kind of thing would usually frustrate me but the interviewer so often misrepresented and mischaracterised Peterson it made the whole think farcical and therefore amusing. Perhaps the funniest comment was by John C. Wright,

Please count the number of times in this video the female interviewer says the words “so what you are saying is” and then count the number of times the male interviewee agrees and says, “Yes you have understood me exactly.”

By my count, the first number is infinite, and the second is zero.

Though I agree with some things that Peterson says and disagree with others, it seems that Cathy Newman was not even interested in understanding his position, whether that be because of ignorance or intentional distortion. There are things to be learned from this episode such as claims of subsequent threats against Newman were generally false and therefore we need to be suspicious of many claims by the media. Or that requesting your allies to refrain from bad behaviour will be used by your enemies as justification that such behaviour is occurring. But there was a comment made in the Atlantic which is worth highlighting. Conor Friedersdorf writes about an interview technique that he sees used increasingly frequently: where the interviewer restates the interviewee's response in his own words,

Then, another person restates what they purportedly said so as to make it seem as if their view is as offensive, hostile, or absurd.

After going through several examples Friedersdorf comes to this conclusion,

Newman repeatedly poses as if she is holding a controversialist accountable, when in fact, for the duration of the interview, it is she that is “stirring things up” and “whipping people into a state of anger.” 

Exactly. The divisive person paints his opponent as divisive. This is the problem many have with the left. It is not just that we disagree with their position, it is the dishonesty combined with the fact that they are being divisive at the same time claiming that their opponents are the divisive ones. It is rank hypocrisy.

Creating dissension for the sake of it is a tactic of the evil one. It is to be avoided. Paul pleads with Euodia and Syntyche to get along (Phi 4:2). Elsewhere he says to warn a divisive person twice before having nothing further to do with them (Tit 3:10).

Now I have left leaning friends that are very honest, and I grant that many people on the left and right genuinely believe things that happen to be false. Further, this tactic is wrong when those on the right (or purported to be so) use it. But the use of this technique is evidence that the media (predominantly the left learning) are biased against righteousness: they use tools of the Devil. I am not saying here that the left are against truth because they are often wrong (though I think they are), I am saying that they are the most guilty of deliberately mischaracterising their opponents to justify their own narrative.

Friedersdorf concludes that he  wrote his article as,

an argument that the effects of the approach used in this interview are pernicious.

Exactly. We restate our opponent's perspective so that they may clarify whether or not we understand them. Not so that we can put lies in their mouths, lies that they do not even believe.

One may argue, what of rhetoric? Is not rhetoric the same kind of method we use in debates to win arguments?

In short, no. The point of rhetoric done well is to appeal to emotion in making an argument. But the man of God is only to use rhetoric in pursuit of the truth. Showing the consequences of an opponent's argument is not the same as saying he holds to premises that he most certainly does not.

BBC anti-Christian?

A survey on the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) showed that viewers consider the BBC biased:

Many people believe the corporation retains a politically Left-wing or “liberal bias” and that religions other than Christianity were sometimes better represented, according to they survey.

And specifically anti-Christian:

In terms of religion, there were many who perceived the BBC to be anti-Christian and as such misrepresenting Christianity.

A spokesman for the BBC denied the charges:

We have strict editorial guidelines on impartiality, including religious perspectives, and Christian programming forms the majority and the cornerstone of our religion and ethical output.

Yet a leaked report in 2006 revealed that the BBC was intentionally anti-Christian:

An internal memo, recently discovered by the British media, revealed what the BBC has been trying to hide. Senior figures admitted in a recent 'impartiality' summit that the BBC was guilty of promoting Left-wing views and anti-Christian sentiment.

At the time the a BBC executive acknowledged there were some concerns:

There was a widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness. Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it.

Why would the BBC think that the public will believe their reassurances they are treating Christians fairly when previous documentation shows otherwise, as per the executives' own comments? Public acknowledgement of this by the BBC after the fact hardly suggests that there is significant change since. And when the public see their ongoing anti-Christian programming with their own eyes….

Such bias is mildly concerning, though to be expected by those who reject Christianity; and most news sources are somewhat antagonistic to Christianity. However it is also concerning that that portray themselves as objective when they are not. This is doubly evil given they (the BBC at least) are themselves aware of their lack of objectivity and try to suppress it.

On the provocation defence

For those outside New Zealand there has recently been a widely publicised trial on the murder of Sophie Elliot by Clayton Weatherston. I did not follow this trial, nor did I follow the high profile murder retrial a few months earlier. However it is of course difficult to avoid knowing about it with frequent items in the newspapers and on television.

Weatherston admitted to killing Elliot but went to court in an attempt to have the murder charge downgraded to manslaughter invoking the defence of provocation. This defence was not successful and Weatherston was found guilty of murder.

According to the New Zealand Herald on the defence of provocation:

The defence is covered under section 169 of the Crimes Act 1961.

The provocation defence allows for a killing that would otherwise be classed as murder to be downgraded to manslaughter if it can be proven that the person who caused the death was provoked.

The provocation must have some relation to a characteristic of the offender.

It must cause the offender to lose the power of self-control of an ordinary person and have induced the offender to kill.

I am not certain whether the defence solely applies to verbal/ written provocation, or also physical provocation. I assume both. Though physical provocation may also lead to self defence.

It is important to note that provocation does not remove all culpability, it merely reduces the blame; and also, perhaps, affects sentencing.

There has been a significant amount of controversy following the verdict because the court case allowed Weatherston to reveal a significant amount of private data concerning Elliot. Complaints along the lines of continuing to persecute the family, insult Elliot from the grave, etc.

2 well written responses have been made by Glenn Peoples and Madeleine Flannagan. I just wish to make a variety of comments.

1. Murder is a horrible situation. It is horrible when it happens, it is horrible being reminded of it, it is horrible going through court, it is horrible on the anniversary of the victim's death. In a broken world we have horror and while we can try and minimise it, it cannot be removed. Decisions about justice must be made on the principles of justice and mercy, not on the basis of preventing bad feelings. Else the law will become unjust and cause more, and even worse horror.

2. The provocation defence was not successful in this instance. Thus the law worked correctly. It is questionable that people consider changing the law based on a wrong case outcome, but to change it after a correct conviction?

3. Evil people do evil. They try and misuse the law to their advantage, they lie, they murder. Law changes do not affect evil men, they disregard them anyway. Removing this defence will not prevent evil people being evil, but it will damage those less evil. It will prevent legitimate provocation from being taken into account. It will also mean that criminals will falsely use other defences such as self defence and insanity to get reduced sentences or acquittal.

4. Culpability is not a dichotomous variable. People have partial blame. To disallow the discussion of events around a crime denies that there are considerations that need to be taken into account and can prevent justice being fully accomplished.

5. Much of this debate would be a non-issue if we did not allow the courts to be treated as entertainment. It is true that open courts have their benefits. Perhaps family court should be more open for example. But allowing anyone to attend a court case is a far cry from broadcasting audio or video. People may have a genuine interest in a case, but most people watching from their living rooms would not put in the effort to attend court daily and listen to the arguments. Allowing media into courts means that the case is effectively served up as entertainment, and it allows the media to sway public opinion by what they show and what they leave out.

I think that the courts should probably be open, but disallow the videoing and recording of cases, save what the courts wish to do for their own purposes. Reporting of cases should be forbidden until after the event. I even wonder whether defendants should be routinely given name suppression, as much as practical, with maintenance of this in cases that are successfully defended.

If this had been in place, then many of the things said by Weatherston about Elliot would have not be known by the public.

That being said, as the situation played out, most of New Zealand hold Weatherston in contempt, and probably more so than had the events not been played out in the media.