It's not so much that it was a "shouting match." It's what they were shouting about.

The headline at CNN is "Florida hearing in Trump classified documents case devolves into shouting match" (CNN).

But look at this dispute!

[I]n the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case.... Walt Nauta, one of former President Donald Trump’s co-defendants, [was scheduled] to present arguments that special counsel Jack Smith’s team had selectively and vindictively brought charges against him.

But the hearing quickly diverted into a longstanding disagreement over an August 2022 meeting between prosecutor Jay Bratt and Nauta’s defense attorney, Stanley Woodward. Woodward has claimed in court proceedings and filings that Bratt attempted to pressure him into convincing Nauta to cooperate against Trump by threatening to affect a potential judgeship nomination....“I had been recommended for a judgeship, that’s beyond dispute,” Woodward said Wednesday. “There was a folder about defense counsel on the table” during that meeting, he said, claiming Bratt referenced that judgeship recommendation.

“I think the implication was that I was to travel and convince Mr. Nauta to cooperate with the investigation, and if I didn’t that, there would be consequences,” Woodward said.

Prosecutor David Harbach then rose and accused Woodward of engaging in “procedural gamesmanship” by making a “garbage argument” about the meeting.

“Mr. Woodward’s story of what happened at that meeting is a fantasy,” Harbach shouted, banging his hand on the lectern in front of him. “It did not happen.”...

During Wednesday’s hearing, Harbach slammed Woodward, saying he chose not to report the alleged incident until months later and has repeatedly changed his recollection of the conversation.

“This is a lawyer whose allegations amount basically to him being extorted,” Harbach said of Woodward, waving his arms.

Woodward sat behind the prosecutor with his hands clasped and his head down.

[Judge Aileen Cannon] quickly scolded Harbach, telling the attorney to “calm down.” Cannon questioned why there was no evidence gathered of what happened in the 2022 conversation, saying, “Why do those comments [about Woodward] have to be made?” 

“That is not true, and I didn’t say that,” Harbach shouted back. The prosecutor said that that there was no recording of the conversation between Bratt and Woodward, but that Smith’s team has preserved any record they have of the meeting.

Woodward shot back up to the lectern, saying that “I’m here” and offering to testify under oath to what he remembered of the meeting....

Here's the same story as reported in the NYT, "Sparring in Trump Documents Hearing Highlights Case’s Slow Pace/A prosecutor got into a heated exchange with Judge Aileen Cannon over a minor point, as the case continues to crawl." Would you consider it a "minor point" if you were a criminal defendant and the prosecutor gave your lawyer a reason like that to advise you to do what served the prosecutor's interest?

A lawyer for the co-defendant, Walt Nauta, claims that prosecutors hinted that they could derail a judgeship he was seeking if he did not prevail on Mr. Nauta to turn on Mr. Trump.

“The story about what happened at that meeting is a fantasy,” Mr. Harbach told Judge Cannon at one point. “It did not happen.”

The testy conversation ended with Judge Cannon advising Mr. Harbach to calm down. It was emblematic of the mounting frustration that prosecutors in the office of the special counsel, Jack Smith, have evinced not only toward defense lawyers in the case, but also toward the judge herself.

So the prosecutor's tone of voice and behavior is not described. Instead, we are told that the prosecutors are frustrated.  

The dispute came on the heels of Mr. Trump’s legal team making several aggressive — and some unfounded — allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and political gamesmanship against Mr. Smith in a pair of motions unsealed on Tuesday...

The lawyer, Woodward, is describing something he experienced first hand, so you can't call that "unfounded." But the NYT is saying only that "some" of the "aggressive... allegations" are unfounded.

In laying out evidence of what he asserted was a vindictive prosecution, Mr. Nauta’s lawyer, Stanley Woodward Jr., told Judge Cannon that during his first meeting with the government in August 2022, a prosecutor, Jay I. Bratt, mentioned that he had recently read that Mr. Woodward had applied to be a judge in Washington and hoped that he did not do anything to “screw it up.”

By Mr. Woodward’s account, Mr. Bratt followed that remark with an assertion that the government wanted Mr. Nauta to cooperate with its investigation. When Mr. Nauta refused to turn on Mr. Trump and declined to testify in front of a grand jury, Mr. Woodward claims prosecutors punished him by filing charges.

Mr. Woodward had initially asked Judge Cannon in filings to dismiss the indictment on those grounds. He scaled back his request in court on Wednesday, asking instead for another hearing in which witnesses could be called — Mr. Woodward among them — to determine exactly what had happened at the meeting with Mr. Bratt....

With Mr. Bratt listening from the prosecution table, Mr. Harbach immediately went after Mr. Woodward, calling his vindictive prosecution claims “a garbage argument.” Mr. Harbach made the point that even if Mr. Bratt had shown animus to Mr. Woodward — and he was not conceding that had happened — such feelings had nothing to do with how prosecutors may have treated his client, Mr. Nauta....

Well, he's not conceding that it didn't happen. It sounds as though he's only trying to minimize it. It's a "garbage argument." He's just claiming to have made a neutral decision on Nauta after Nauta declined to cooperate. 

Although she seemed to recognize the tangential nature of Mr. Woodward’s allegations, Judge Cannon nonetheless appeared to be intrigued.

She asked Mr. Harbach whether it was true, as Mr. Woodward has claimed, that Mr. Bratt opened their discussion at the meeting by noting that Mr. Woodward was not a “Trump lawyer” in a way that seemed to be designed to curry favor with him.

“Should comments like that be made?” Judge Cannon asked. “Is that consistent with the fullest standards of professionalism?”

Mr. Harbach eventually conceded that words to that effect had in fact been used at the meeting. But he was adamant that there had been no effort to threaten Mr. Woodward into getting Mr. Nauta to flip on Mr. Trump.

“It’s plainly untrue,” he said, adding in an almost pleading voice, “It’s just not right.”