Now I know I'm slightly obsessed by The Guardian, but in this piece, the author

[Peter]

How does it not add up as it really what she says. (I admit it is clumsily written nonsense on the whole)

Because she doesnt say he will do anything to get ratings. She says he would happily preside over the hanging of gays to get ratings.

Removing this part is precisely the same as removing the ratings part. If she wants to say he will do anything to get ratings, say that. She doesnt. She says he would happily (happily!) preside over it for ratings. Whatever way you cut it she 'suspects' he would happily hang gays. Why does the motivation for hanging gays matter more than the, you know, hanging of gays?