The problem with the whole focus on Cathy Newman's performance as a journalist is that it lays bare double standards of the most obvious kind. The issue is not whether she's a good interviewer or not; it's why this is even considered an issue in 'evaluating' the abuse she received.
It's fine and barely ever remarked on for Paxman or Snow to do badly researched, leading, hectoring interviews (and the standards they keep to are generally low), but as soon as a woman does the same thing, suddenly everything else drops away and the focus is all upon her, with the alarming subtext, sometimes articulated and sometime non-articulated, that the misogynist abuse directed at her is something she brought upon herself/her fault. As if misogynist abuse is something that is regrettable and horrible, but sometimes, y'know, if a woman doesn't perform an interview very well, that's just what happens and is kind of a result of her not being good at interviewing.
And then when this is pointed out, well of course that's not the case, of course we're not justifying the abuse in any way... but hey... there does still seem to remain some mysterious, ineffable connection between CN's skill as a journalist and the fact that men are making rape threats against her and calling her a bitch. And that's just life isn't it, nothing to do with us, no way...