She represented a point of view, and she asked him the questions her viewers presumably wanted asked, put the image of him up against him, and gave him a chance to explain himself, and he did so splendidly.
In effect she played devil's advocate, and while she probably genuinely believed in that position that doesn't really change the outcome. It was a great discussion for formulating his position.
When she was confronted with well-founded corrections she handled it professionally. She didn't talk over him, she didn't disregard him. She challenged him, but as he pointed out, that's her job.
People make fun of her for losing her sort of leadership role and not knowing what to say, but I think that just showed that she was genuinely paying attention to what her guest was saying, rather than just steamrolling her own agenda.
"Hah. Gotcha!" "You have got me. You have got me."
That's not embarrassing or unprofessional. That's intellectual honesty.
Now why thousands of morons would harrass her after this I must admit I can't really explain. They're just examples of what Peterson talks about, I guess. People who won't grow up. Apparently being a Peterson fanboi doesn't necessarily help you absorb his message.
> It is much to Newman’s credit that, 23 minutes in, she drew breath, paused and considered her position. We say that we want our interviewers to be less pugnacious and more thoughtful – and yet we pillory them when they have the guts to be contemplative on air.