Can't argue with this quote from Tom Blumer of BizzyBlog:

It’s a tradition that goes back at least as far as the Vietnam War, when CBS edited and reshuffled the content of a TV interview with a US general to make it appear as if he believed that having wars from time to time was a necessary and good thing. CBS, operating in the days of Old Media’s de facto monopoly, paid little if any price for its transgression. Someone on the order of a Bill Buckley or Cal Thomas objected, and that was about it.

That creative editing was occurring and considered a hallowed right of Old Media during its “good old days” is almost indisputable. As I recall it, several Nixon Administration advisers in the early 1970s whom the networks wished to interview agreed to do so, with but one proviso: The interviews would either be live, or air unedited. My recall is that CBS never followed through on any of these interviews. Readers are welcome to fill in any gaps in yours truly’s memory.

The practice of “creative interviewing” continues. The latest to get caught doing it is New York Times “Questions For” writer Deborah Solomon.

Note the examples that Donald Luskin mentions, which strongly implies that the Times' ozone layer of ombudsmen and editors didn't intercede until a few of Solomon's fellow Manhattan/Beltway journalists loudly complained. Which leads one to believe that for everyone else, altering quotes or video interviews beyond recognition will still be considered fair game in the legacy media.

As I mentioned a while back, by the late 1990s, when savvy interviewees finally caught onto the fact that their quotes could be twisted against them, CBS attempted to counter, at least for a time, by having interviewees sign a release form that they wouldn't tape their own interviews, according to Bernard Goldberg. Now that's chutzpah.