Having grunked, here is what is standing out to me.
1) Both she and Piers have their public versions of themselves, their characters that they play, only she pretends (or believes) that hers is real.
As per Piers being quite a decent sounding bloke by the sound of things, we know from her own words that she's a neurotic, tantrum throwing, attention seeking, drama queen behind the scenes (see throwing a book at her publisher, wailing like a banshee, making partners come home to look after her etc etc).
A lukewarm take, that one, but an interesting parallel nonetheless.
2) At this point I firmly believe that she gets these jobs because she is completely predictable, says the right things, has nothing new to add, will never upset the applecart with actually difficult questions or new issues because everything is based on her. She ticks the right boxes whilst providing a nice bit of filler material for organisers without them having to find anyone.
You don't want your conference going off piste with actual food bank users onstage because they might cry or be angry or something inconvenient that'd duck with the flow and the timings.
3) Finally, her willingness to be so gross and disrespectful (three day old t-shirt to a dinner) shows her wealth and privilege more obviously than anything else, even the stupid spoons.
My grandparents were poor, I work with people in extreme poverty, anyone genuinely hard up would make far, far more of an effort.
It's like those bonkers grubby rich people, there was a TV show on one family but it's quite common, you can slob about when you're minted or landed, not so much when you're a pov.