Since you're posting from an "anonymous" account so that means your opinion is already invalid, but I'll answer anyway.
No one has claimed that "just because an interview appears in print doesn't make it a print interview." But someone did claim the opposite, with "unassailable logic." No, this is all based on something Morrissey said onstage, that he would do no more print interviews. He did not say, "never again will I respond in writing to a journalist. If I do you may consider me, with unassailable logic, a hypocrite."
I have already pointed out that "print interview" is a term with a meaning that was established long before anyone heard of email. Was the Der Spiegel interview conducted via email? It was not. His words were transcribed.
Now, this is not to say that he was misquoted. It turns out that the quotes attributed to him were pretty much what he said. He has made conflicting statements before. Is he a hypocrite? He might be. Is he inconsistent? Definitely. To say you are against rape and sexual assault while blaming the victims of rape and sexual assault is, at best, inconsistent.
Meanwhile, I'm not "the base" and I've specifically said he's a xenophobe and that he intentionally used language that had historical ties to racism when he chose the term "subspecies."
I'm sorry if this is a difficult issue for you to understand but you're really just trying to muddy the waters.
Again, he did not say, "I will never again respond in writing to a journalist's questions." He said he won't do print interviews. Talk to some journalists or just google "print interview." you will see that email interviews, while they may appear in print, are different in one crucial way, which is that the subject's words are transcribed, something which does not occur in an email interview.