Mmm. I would say sort of, insofar as you're giving plenty of benefit of the doubt to the presenter and none to the journalist. I think it's entirely reasonable with what we know now to say that the presenter most likely meant no harm and the error was inadvertent. I don't think it's reasonable to then go on to say that the journalist's reaction was driven by malice. She slightly exaggerated an event that happened that hurt her feelings, as all of us humans tend to do, especially when talking to our friends, and generally without even noticing we're doing it. I don't think it's fair to say that she deliberately set out to hurt the presenter.
I think if you read the original set of tweets (in the OP) you are being too charitable.
"Hope someone from Microsoft sees this," seems to strongly indicate that Laura was trying to hurt the presenter's relationship with his employer.
The "Screw not naming and shaming" post, after telling the Twitter world the guy's last name, strongly indicates Laura wanted him publicly shamed.
Laura then went and gave out the presenter's Twitter address, and immediately followed up with another Tweet saying "I'm fed up with 'being professional' , from now on I public ally [sic] shame those who make me feel like shit." This clearly shows Laura not only wanted the presenter publicly "shamed," she was giving her Twitter followers the information needed to contact him and express their own outrage.
I don't know how you can possibly look at Laura's own words in those tweets and suggest there wasn't a deliberate act of vengeance in play, put into motion by this so-called "journalist." And the malice is readily admitted to in the Tweets.
I would find it admirable that you seek to give "the benefit of the doubt" to Laura, if there actually was a shred of doubt to give. But it seems pretty clear that there isn't much doubt, if any, that Laura's motives were clearly to hurt the presenter's employment, and to publicly shame him for hurt feelings.