I like his impassioned refusal to accept any mitigating circumstances for the fabricated evidence.

At the end he does however accuse her of saying 'to be fair' about it. Going back, what she said was in fact 'For the viewers'.

Her perspective did actually appear to be that she was explaining to the viewers, as part of the question, the evidence that was fabricated, rather than trying to minimise it.

I can see how he could interpret her question as an attempt at minimisation but he was hostile and didn't seek to explore with her what she was trying to ask, and giving her the chance to agree that doctoring evidence is heinous.

So much for his suggestion of getting the extremes to find common ground.

It's possible that he's had dozens of shit interviews and she happened to be the one with whom he lost patience. Still unprofessional of him.