However I still stand that a broadcaster whose job is to be impartial shouldn't have been anywhere near that interviewee. She has a clear financial incentive to bellite her guest. That's different to a presenter who buys coffee from Costa Coffee when interviewing someone from Pret.
I'm not sure how or why you think she has a clear financial incentive to belittle that particular guest? Many, many journalists will have views/interests that may well be connected to the story they're covering. Take the piece on BBC News yesterday about farmers' mental health issues as just one example. The reporter was BBC journalist Gareth Barlow, a former farmer himself (as stated in the report).
I know the subject matter is different, but my point is that you will never be able to have *people* that are truly impartial on every topic but that you must strive to ensure the people you do have *act* with impartiality.
Home owning/renting/being a landlord are things that just about every adult in the country will probably have done at some point. It was a top story on many outlets yesterday and Sky News couldn't very well ignore it because the rostered presenter happened to be a landlord. The editorial management would (I expect) quite rightly have expected her to conduct the interview in an impartial manner as I'm sure she has with many other subjects she has a view or experience in.
I think that's a pretty decent response to be fair. Short of "I resign" what more did you expect?
I think people would probably have been expecting an actual apology rather than just an admission that a mistake has been made which upset people (not least the interviewee).
"Mea Culpa" is generally considered to be a form of apology isn't it?
I think it's a bit of a grey area. Personally I would take it as meaning "it's my fault" but not necessarily "I'm sorry". Having a quick look at online opinion, her tweet certainly seems to have been taken as a non-apology by most (I know Twitter isn't the best place for reasoned opinions but still).