^ I guess what I'm saying is that I wasn't impressed with either of them. He's obviously a turd. But it wasn't terribly good journalism on her part, and I've heard her do a lot of great interviews.
It would be like if she interviewed Steve, and had read a book about his life, and then suddenly was all shocked and horrified that he was gay and had slept with a lot of men, and even more shocked and horrified that he wasn't ashamed to admit it, or that he even felt proud about it in certain ways, or found satisfaction in it, etc.
Now, mind you, the analogy breaks down quickly when considering that Gene was being and out and out ass, and was way over the top in his efforts to get her goat; he didn't give the listener anything to like about him other than his brutal (albeit offensive and self-indulgent) honesty; whereas Steve would undoubtedly show other aspects of his personality, which would offer the listener something more, something that they could like about him even if they weren't able to identify with certain particulars about his personality and lifestyle.
So it's not that I disagree about Gene. He failed miserably in giving the listener anything to like about him, but I think he did so intentionally.
That she got sucked into it and became defensive took away from the opportunity she had to actually get to the bottom of what was driving these behaviors and attitudes, and to see if there was anything else inside of the shell of a person she was speaking to. In other words, I think she was complicit in the failure of the interview in the sense that she helped to feed the audience with contempt based on her (and their) standards. Instead of delving deeper into his psyche when it started to turn in that direction, she instead choose to ask him about inane bullshit like how he paints his face and if/how he breathes fire.