There's the message and then there's the messenger. I guess you don't want us to look at the message.

Newman's parents were siblings? That explains a lot.

Regardless of how good or bad her intentions were, she has really gone about this in the worst way possible. NDA breaching aside, if she really cared about giving the people the truth, she should have shared all this information to the general for FREE and a freely accessible source like what wiki leaks did. The fact she shared with for money to a media organisation while for some odd reason not doing it to other media organisations she was employed by says it all really. Surely if you care about the truth getting out you want as many outlets as possible to get your message out to as many people as possible. The fact she was selective with this financial transaction says to me it was either about the money or about ensuring who she shares it with, spins the story in a way to fit her narrative. She y frankly a HYPOCRITE to say that’s her private affairs and should not be anybodies business after having leaked someone’s WhatsApp messages for money. That’s a bit rich. And surely, if she feels we have a right to the truth, I firmly believe we also have a right to how her “truth” was leaked. If she was doing the right thing, she would have nothing to hide.

Thanks for the hard hitting questions that we frankly needs answers to. I for one don’t mind her intentions but dislike a lot about how she has gone about all this. The “gripes” or “concerns” I had about her were precisely laid out in your interview and would have been her opportunity to win over people like me and help me better understand her moral character and at least come to terms with the intentions behind what she has done. But she ducked and dived and fled the interview which says it all.

@@Maxrodon The Story is how covid policy was made, the story isn't the person who gave you the story. But you seem to be easily manipulated by the media. Well done. By the way, it was Matt Hancock that leaked the Whatsapp messages. But again, you've been manipulated.

Peterson fan boy 😂😂😂😂

@@marty1459 Simping for Cathy?

That was one of the best demolition jobs I've ever seen. Well done Jordan Peterson.

@@StimParavane You're allowed to think they're both idiots.

@@ravecrab "Confession through projection". If you think JP is an idiot then you must be a clown.

Cathy is not a journalist.

@@williamdew7143 Oakeshott has never called herself a journalist . She is international EDITOR of TalkTV What rock do you creatures live under ?

Cathy Newman is a co conspirator they where giving us the lies from the government without questioning them.

So what your saying is …

@@pippipster6767 :D

Completely agree. She appears to take the audience for fools.

And so is Oakshott

And Oakshott is worse.

It's very hard to like Isabel Oakeshott! I have tried hard but I have not succeeded! Having said that Hancock is even more objectionable!

@@kennethhodges3187 I do not feel under any obligation to like either of them, nor the harpie interviewing her.

Well, it’s not different, you only choose to be selective. What happened to all the Americans that told the truth about the war? They were sent to prison. One of the truth sayers has been hiding in an embassy for years, there is no truth, only how is powerful enough to punish. She’s signed a NDA, and she broke it, not for the truth but for money. How much did she sell it for?

@@okunrin3 I'm not selective. I'm totally neutral and call out the Totaltarian aspects of both political ideologies. As a result, I am hated by both sides.

@@ickster23 that’s good to know. In the case of Isabel, she only did it for money and political gain. She’s not a person after the truth. I really hope she is sued, she is making money on two sides, 1) writing a book for him. 2) selling confidential. She can’t even tell us how much the information was sold for.

@@okunrin3 It's all irrelevant. This is just a smokescreen so that people argue about the person, not the particulars of the disclosed information. I don't care if a green elf released the information. The information to be discussed is that which is contained in the correspondence. This is like arguing about whether Snowden is a traitor or not while ignoring the elephant in the room that is "why is the US illegally monitoring its own citizens".

@@ickster23 Because there is no such thing as freedom. You are a 'subject' of a sovereign state, i.e. subject to the laws of the state. You alienated your freedom the moment you became a citizen of the state. Does that answer your question as to why the state can 'monitor you'?

silver lined...

Indeed it was one of the greatest interviews ever. Poor Cathy was demolished and she’ll never recover from it.

"So what you're saying is...'

@@lukeharrop4620 are you calling me a lobster?

@@lukeharrop4620 Ha Ha ! Yes !

That’s correct

Cathy should be one of those held accountable and put in prison. Usually every interview she does she brings up Brexit and tries to manipulate it as that as the cause of everything. No doubt she works for the WEF.

That you Isabel? Don't like the truth?

As is Oakeshott. They're both hacks.

@@M_Bamboozled Cathy is pretty hot though ! Isabel Bogshyte is a hound.

Well spotted

@@patmccarthy 😆🤣

exactly what I thought!

Reminds me of Alan partridge and his interview with the farmer.

She's awful at hiding her jealousy of Isabel Oakeshott.

Brave? You heard how much cash she's got for ratting on her clients.

I see this point of view a lot on here. I don't think it's well based. Isabelle Oakeshott was writing a book with Matt Hancock for ~1 year. She claims she was inclined to leak after his decision to go on I'm A Celebrity. That means either she's just lying, or for a long time she wasn't going to leak at all. I wouldn't characterise her as courageous, that gives her too much credit. I'd say potentially useful, but deeply untrustworthy, deceiving, and with her own agenda. Don't tell me she only just saw these messages after a year of working on a book called 'Pandemic Diaries'. That by it's nature would be a blow-by-blow who-said-what account from the beginning, so I don't think Matt Hancock revealed the messages to her only recently.

It takes great courage to shaft your work mates and then have a childish strop when someone has dares to question your integrity

She's about as courageous as a cokehead in an underground coke den, something she probably knows alot about

How do you define corporate media? She broke the story in the Telegraph, not a radical free sheet. How that any less the corporate media than the times?

It's odd listening to the introduction. It's half way between I'm really bad at hiding my intents and I'm mocking you.

She ain't no journalist she's just another lefty mouth piece

How she was employed in the first place is a mystery, dull and dumb.

She is diversity hire to serve blackrocks ESG toxic agendas

She got views. Jordan handed them to her, despite herself. She appears to salivate over making any interview into an ad hominem attack. So sad to see.

She isn't employed as a journalist, she's an activist employed to push an agenda.

I can't believe Oakeshott does. Or maybe she doesn't now, given her sources might worry about her exposing their identity at the drop of a hat.

it's a club

She bats for the establishment so her future is secure.

Like Lousy Linekar.

@@lizglaisher895 It's a bit different. Lineker is employed as a sporting pundit; a job for which he is clearly qualified.

That woman follows the script for her money. When she gets caught out by an intelligent interviewee though the wheels come off the shopping trolley , her favourite ploy to get out of that is to simply shut the interview down and go to a " break ".

😅

hahahaha

Awww look its another one of those Jordan Peterson loving frustrated incels 😂😂😂

I think those highlights in her hair actually seeped through her scalp and into her brain.

​@@Rob.S859 the spanking that she took from Jordan Peterson certainly didn't.... hahaha 😮

So you're saying women can't learn? They'll never be equal to men?

So you are saying women aren't intelligent?

Cope

You showed Andi HK. How will he ever recover from such a stinging reply? 🤔🤣🤣

Check out David kurten

Isabel bailed because she's an entitled snowflake.

It was embarrassing. Dishonest from the beginning. Newman is just 3rd rate. It's only because she's a connected woman she stayed in a job after the public dissection by Peterson. Even Max Moseley ran rings round her pathetic attempts at 'gotcha'.

Irrelevant.

But this two bit hack has actually made the country feel sympathy for him! As for the cat story, that's old news going back to the early lockdowns, so not sure why that's been dredged up again?

Wankcock has been on my Hostile Radar since 2014 when he was Communities Minister this rodent was supposed to meet with the UKs Bankers at where else the Gleneagles Hotel in Scotland a very 5* establishment to read the riot act concerning their greed and downright mistreating of their accountholders which was a source of concern to Cameron Govt since the 2008 crash but what did this creature do he came out on the side of bankers and the resultant 2015 Finance Act was watered down.Though he is not standing at the next election it is solely due to his name being so toxic amongst voter wankcock was effectively like Damien Greene Deselected and so far about 60 tory mps are getting that fate for upsetting voters?

Actually it's just another aspect of Johnson's abject failure as a leader. He appointed Hancock after all: but who's to bet that the Torygraph will deliberately soft-peddle that side of things?

​@@massivehero4871 or locked up

Could we not attempt to deal with more than a single issue at once?

This story is blowing up all over the place and Cathy Newman missed an opportunity to discuss some very serious issues. Silly.

@@starwood213 Classic example of blind devotion. Makes me wonder what Oakeshott would need to do for you not to support her.

​@@starwood213 She can't discuss it, it would ebtiak admitting that she's wrong. It entail admitting that she took part in the largest transfer of wealth from poor to rich in UK history.

@@Paul2377 strange assumption.

@@starwood213 Strange or warranted? The latter I feel. At least be honest, Susan.

High morality 😂

What else really do ppl honestly expect though if politicians continue to be installed and then operate from within an inherently corrupt hierarchical structure?

".....These cruel, self centered little men have cost so many, so much yet we still do nothing...." self centered little men AND WOMEN. [eg: Baroness Mone] Other than that, couldn't agree with you more. :)

Agreed. Not forgetting the little women of severe 13 years of toxicity in the former and current front bench of government. It's a given that both genders are proving to have the slimy worm parasitic corrosive indignant consideration beyond their own existence is a lot more visible to us outside that reality.

and lets not forget the so called journalists who helped them get away with. where was the scrutiny? at the time? nowhere

Absolutely .Those that reveal it are questioned ? Disgusting .

Another incel.

That's because it was the real state that wanted Nixon taken down. Woodward was a total democratic plant

I bet then too there were corporate pseudo-journalists too, applying all sorts of cheap sophistry to divert attention from what was inconvenient to them or the figures and institutions that they were willing to protect. There always are media prostitutes out there. They are just forgotten by time for their utter historical irrelevance, much like Newman is bound to also be, for perhaps the exception of her train-wreck interview with JBP which might continue to be a case study for mediocre journalism for a couple more decade to come.

😅

Absolutely. I noticed that, and I'm SURE Newman did too. She just didn't want to cut herself short, to highlight her embarrassment at Isabel dropping off the call. So yeah, she still continued talking, and THEN pretended she only just noticed that Isabel had gone.

It was very cringe

Embarrassing that Cathy Newman still has a job in journalism. She’s not a real journalist. She constantly misrepresents people, uses straw man tactics and never has any intention of reciprocating honesty in a conversation. She clearly sees it as a game to ‘destroy’ her opponent, which is classic behaviour for every ideologue.

as per usual

actually, she is the only one asking the right questions

@@mattthomas1089 Thomas = Hancock ? Don't you really want to know about the Govts handling of covid, climate, ukraine, etc. Oh, no right - we can trust them. Can't we ?

Oakshott claims she didn't sleep very well but I'm sure that £250,000 she received in exchange for the messages helped to lighten the burden of grief... if she was doing it for "the people" as she keeps screaming about then she should donate that chunk of change to a good cause..... also she kept information about that payment very quiet..... but nah... she's just another reptile out for herself... no honor amongst thieves.

No grace left.

Oh yes indeed!!!

Whatsapp messages can be taken out of context and do not give anywhere near the full picture of what was happening at the time. Don't be fooled by people like Isabel Oakeshott and her new newspaper selling this as the greatest scoop on earth

Because the people who we expect to keep them to account are now hold their own politically motivation ahead of the news? So, our politicians no longer get held to account

and schoolgirls

99.9% of journalists as well.

school girls also.

Yeah the JP interview was a total car crash - she is not a great journalist. Although if she is shown a line she knows how to follow it.

Both of them are not for 'the people'

Channel 4 News isn't exactly a private institution... Peterston was being challenged because in most interviews the purpose is to have someone address criticisms that already exist so the interviewee can explain their position or the issues. No one needed an interview where he shows Cathy Newman his pics of dinners on Instagram or vacation plans... I'm even not sure Newman was particularly committed to any position personally or knowledgable about him, as she had almost nothing in detail to say other than pose the questions. I think she made a mess of it. I think Peterston should be challenged, especially as he is now grifting off the US religious right wing well outside of his professional expertise.

@Damian Eadie You said a lot of things without saying anything. I dont think you understood the substance of my comment. We are focused in on the interview between Cathy and JP, nothing else

Run away?

Absolutely. Isobel has been contacted by hundreds of people across the nation sharing their agonising stories with her. But this Cathy woman showed no interest

I'd say that publishing the entirety of Hancock's text messages was pretty sensational. If that had been about accuracy and nuance Oakshott would have only included messages directly related to the subject at hand, not for example whether Prime Minister Johnson doesn't understand mathematics for example...

@@bganonimouse2754 Thanks for your opinion. Have a great day.

And what’s covid conspiracy theorist Oakeshott doing? She’s in too deep and now she’s getting a taste of her own vile medicine. She is nothing but an elitist scumbag and a liar.

@Archon It seems that you tend to check the political stance of media outlets, seeking only to agree with those that align with your narrow political leanings. Whether it's the left or the right, you prioritize your personal beliefs over objectivity. Rather than embracing diverse perspectives, you choose to wallow in mediocrity. Have a good day, my friend.

Breaking NDAs, selling information for $$$... hmm sounds to be like Cate is asking the right questions.

an attempt at 'got'cha' journalism

Very unprofessional.

Everything to do with it as she gave the story to the people who pay her

How much does Cathy get paid everytime someone watches her interview with Prof. Peterson? That must've paid for a house.

Its relevant because she jumped ship to join The Telegraph. She is suiting herself while spinning a self serving narrative. Her salary is relevant in the public interest to known what she gets out of breaking a contract as they drip feed the information. If she was doing it just for the public interest she would stay with her old employeer or release the messages to all media outlets

If you haven't already seen her attack on Jordan Peterson, Gary, that interview could also vie for first position. I was shocked when I saw it.

Did she break an important story? Since the beginning of the pandemic we knew politicians reacted too slowly and didnt agree on how to handle things while claiming they were backed up by science.

An ad hominen attack in order to damage the credibility of the interviewee, distract the viewer or listener and deflect away from the issue at hand. It's a tactic as old as the hills. The Pharisees did it with Jesus. It's always the last resource of someone with no argument, someone with an agenda, someone envious or a combination of all three...

@@AllanGildea do you have link for that please 🙏

Well Cathy was from Channel 4.

hahaha

Grins

So we are lobsters?!

Forever

Is that all you’ve got? What a melt. LoL!

Yes, that bit also went badly. 😆

Broke only in a different sense - she was on the Roald Dahl sensitivity review board.

Loved it 😂

Yeah, that was quite embarrassing 😅

*maybe if you broke some stories you would* 💀

Green with envy over that sourfaced backstabber? Heh.

* Cathy

@@johnristheanswer The K is for Karen.

I'd be happy with hearing Cathy answer it, but I also want to hear Isobel answer it. Accountability needs to come from ALL sides. Why are people always backing one side or the other? They ALL need to be transparent.

The two are not comparable. Even if it's true that Cathy Newman "lost" the debate with Peterson why should she be any the less trusted as an interviewer? The claim here is that Oakeshott has a record of betraying her sources, so it's fair to say that sources will not trust her in the future.

​@@nickgold8534 It's just that - a 'claim' made only by Cathy Newman, a proven failure after the Jordan Peterson interview.

@@nickgold8534 You've missed the point about the Cathy Newman interview with Peterson. It wasn't about her "loosing the debate". It was about her being blatantly unprofessional and giving a very poor interview. About her endlessly putting ideas and words in Peterson's mouth. About her not wanting to get to the truth, but wanting to score ideological points. And they are "comparable" in precisely the way I stated. The cases may not be identical, but they certainly are comparable. Perhaps, then, it boils down to politics. You rationalise and defend Newman for political reasons. And don't do the same for Oakeshott for equally political reasons. Basically, I strongly suspect that you don't like Oakeshott's politics and you don't like Peterson's politics either. As for myself, I didn't have any view of Oakeshott (positive or negative) before this "betraying of sources" minor story in the nerd-politics bubble. I just noted that what was applied to Oakeshott, could also be applied to Newman.

@@paulaustinmurphyThank you for your comment. Actually, I too don’t like the style of interviewing that centres on winning or losing. I put “lost” in quotations because it’s not my view, but the view of many supporters of Peterson, demonstrated in the comments, that Newman “lost the debate”, that he “destroyed” or “schooled” her. I think there is a fundamental difference between the two cases. I have watched the video again, and I agree with you that Cathy Newman interviewed Peterson far from effectively; she does put words into his mouth and does aim to “point-score” against him (common traits amongst many contemporary TV and radio interviewers). However, the (I believe justifiable) accusation against Oakeshott is not that she is inept, but that she, not for the first time, consciously betrayed a source (in this case Matt Hancock). Whether one believes that the protection of sources is a good principle or not (I’m ambivalent about it, I think it depends on context), and whether or not the betrayal is in the public interest (I think it is), it was exactly that - a betrayal, and a competent interviewer should surely pursue that line of questioning, as Newman did. Politics is, of course, important. You are right in your claim that I don't like Oakeshott's politics and I don't like Peterson's politics either. I don’t know so much about Cathy Newman, but although I’m on the left I can appreciate the skill of right-wing political interviewers, e.g. Andrew Neil, who is leagues above Newman. By the way, whatever level of expertise Peterson demonstrates in his own field, on the subjects of Marxism and Postmodernism, on both of which he often comments, he is woefully ill-informed, and prone to wildly inaccurate generalisations. Even in the Newman interview his comments on hierarchy in human society are simplistic in the extreme, and basically just wrong.

I'm glad it was posted. I found Isobel's stomping off quite amusing. She's giving Piers Morgan. 🤣

@@Paul2377 no I totally agree, the unintentional self call out is appreciated. Dare I say she’s making piers morgan look good here!😂

@@Arcadi4.44 Indeed. Few could manage that, but Isobel did haha.

YEP totally outclassed

Lol nope, Isobel dashed off when the going got tough. 🤣

Any coward can run away.

Surely it is only right to also examine a journalist's reasons and motives for a story? Particularly when the messages had already been given to the Covid Inquiry. These messages would've come out anyway, so they were not being hushed up. Isabel chose to end the interview before Cathy could get on to Hancock - so that's Isabel's fault. Investigative journalism is brilliant when done correctly but if no journalist investigates the journalist then nothing cant be trusted.

We did all really follow the rules behind closed doors? No one I know did and neither did the out whole street

This NHS worker blames the public for high community transmissions. By your logic the government knocked on the door of everyone in the UK and infected them personally and nobody broke the rules. Pandemic taught us NHS staff how much the public like you hates the NHS

@@Billythecatvseverything Really? You think you know me do you? That's very presumptuous. I think the NHS is the best thing we have in this country and I'll defend it to the end.

'your' queen, if you want her. Not mine. *Chickenshit to springboard yourself with 'our'.

But never seems to win...

Exactly. Well said.

Oakshott has form too!

She also tried to smear that Mosque in South London. She said she was thrown out. So the Mosque released the CCTV footage. She walks in, asks if she can attend some she thinks they're holding, guy at the desk says 'sorry wrong Mosque', she leaves.. Forced to apologise. Womp womp

With respect, Peterson is an average fool, so I wouldn't hold him up to support your comment.

The trouble is - her employer and her colleagues congratulate her on this stuff.

She was more interested in Isabel

@@dogfriendly1623 Yep, seems like bitterness and envy. Either that or she's working for the Government or the Establishment, which wouldn't surprise me these days!!

When the story broke it was all about the texts and their content. Now the dust has settled, a lot of people are interested in hearing more about her and the breaking of the NDA. Plus why did she decide to take the story to the Telegraph? We won't know because she won't answer questions.

@@Paul2377 ???? It's STILL all about the messages. Have you read some of them?? All we needed to know was whether they are genuine or not. And we know they are genuine (basically cos Hancock himself said they are). Who cares if Isabel Oakeshott or Joe Bloggs revealed them to the public?? "Do not shoot the messenger" has been a common expression in English for hundreds of years for one reason only: it is TRUE.

@@leenieledejo6849 I have read some of them yes. I'm interested in why she broke an NDA to give messages to a paper that had already been passed to the official enquiry. I'm interested in why she gave them to the Daily Telegraph when she is employed elsewhere. I'm interested in how much money changed hands, etc. I'm not shooting the messenger, I'm interested in asking her questions, though.

Some of them are. They were leaked to the telegraph, not somewhere public like wikileaks.

I wish there were more access to them. All I see is media witches getting cross with Isobel O.

They're not in the public domain. The Telegraph has the option of being very selective with them.

Cathy is a snake trying to defame a young reporter who’s actually cast light on the system. A system Cathy, and by extension Times Radio is running defence for.

shows you what 99% of politicians and journalists think of the public.

No Cathy cares so much about Isabel's credibility 😂 that she wants to try and ruin it. Cathy should have it, because she actually did her job, and exposed the government!

!!!

'Literally'? Tosh

Cathy’s show should be renamed Amateur Hour.

Rebekah Brooks > Leveson2.

so what you're saying is

Cathy has friends????

Whereas Charles you sound like a bitter man. I bet your single, no friends, no kids……

Yes..MS

judging by this interview she hasn't changed a bit !

Peterson's a slimy orator, confusing common sense with logic.

So, you’re another one that wants the media to faun over our dear corrupt Tory overlords, huh?

@@jimjiminy5836 sweeping statement from you aside, I'll spare you the political journey I went on as a sign of good faith. The single answer is no, I don't think the media should parrot any support for any particular political party.

people are not questioning the media, idiots are. Idiots just tend to shout louder, but they remain a small minority

Isabel Oakeshott is head and shoulders above most of the others, especially Newman.

Exactly

She’s a dreadful journalist as she’s proven before, Oskenshott that is, and why daft Hancock would trust her is beyond belief

You don't sign an NDA then recant

So what are they all about as I don't get it, can you elaborate.

Challenging people who don't like being challenged? That's all I took from it.

@@Paul2377 Yeh your right, thanx. To me Cathy was like trying to make a new story and avoid the whole point of this interview.

Cathy is getting paid to ignore the real story. So typical.

@@kayoss11 If you have not worked it out for yourself by now, nothing I could say here would make a blind bit of difference. Have a nice day.

so what you're saying is... your thought it was a bad interview?

How come you can't get laid? 😂😂😂

@@jasereed5258 how do you know that about me?

That was one poor interview. If you lost your job every time you made a mistake, you'd have been employed many times over.

@@Paul2377 think it was the C4 response and lies on top of the car crash interview that finished it for me

it's now 'so what you're paid is...'

Ew I hope not.

Not a massive fan of CN but if you believe that you’re seriously deluded. Newman was chipping away at the facade that most fair minded people can instantly see through.

Professional jealousy of a "journalist" who took a huge amount of money to ghost write a book for someone, then took a second huge amount of money to betray her source to leak secrets to a news organisation other than the one she works for. No journalist with any self respect is jealous of Isabel Oakshot, a women who would throw her own mother under the bus for a scoop. She's a caricature of a journalist.

Definitely smells of professional jealousy doesn't it. But its also true that journalists ethics are more important than people release, and when you get disclosures like these, it becomes impossible for any journalist to do their job.

Another incel detected... YT seems to be full of them... oh well i guess theres not much else to do when no girl wants to date you 😂😂😂😂🤣 keep crying 😢 😭