I reread it again after my first post where I gave my first impression that it’s a balanced article. It struck me, when I read it again, that it is only balanced in that they expressed no opinion on whether Wallace’s position was reasonable or otherwise. They presented the arguments made and allowed the reader to draw their own conclusions.
The lack of self-reflection is fascinating. My guess, from what IS said, is that McGann was quietly supporting women, and Wallace chose to raise it. McGann chose not to make an issue of the request, but continued to hold and express his views (as is obviously his right).
So quietly retweeting women’s rights activists, without in any way directing it at Wallace, or drawing it to Wallace’s attention, was sufficient grounds for Wallace to push him to stop doing so.
When McGann, without fanfare, continued, Wallace (presumably realising that any official complaint would be dismissed for obvious reasons) stopped commenting directly to McGann. And rather than moving on (as most normal people would, over a political difference with colleagues) Wallace frames that as “calming the waters”. If the waters required calming, it was entirely due to waves Wallace had created.
Impossible to check who restarted the row on Twitter, but I’d be willing to bet that it was Wallace and that McGann did nothing more than continue to express quiet support for women’s rights.
So this is not so much balanced reporting, as giving someone enough rope to hang themselves. I hope the openness to do so continues.