You do have a point there. It's one of the few you've ever made successfully to me.

But you also know all interviews are edited, and sometimes what the interviewer cuts out is done because of his bias, or because he is sympathetic to his subject. After all, it is really unfair to take advantage of the kind of verbal misstatement anybody is likely to make, as an aha! or gotcha! moment. Isn't that why conservative candidates proudly declare they rarely give
interviews except to Fox, or other friendly outfits. They self-righteously claim the MSM misrepresents their thoughts, or quotes them out of context, or as both Palin and Gingrich have actually said, quoted them verbatim! And I do know that some things are edited out of those friendly interviews, too. Comparisons of live recordings and archive video often show it.

I once read the Playboy interview of the head of the Klu Klux Klan. Playboy announced that they were going to publish the interview verbatim, making no corrections for grammar or minor factual errors (as I presume they do for everyone else, transcriptions of speech often read awkwardly), presumably to show what an ignorant and profoundly stupid man this racist was. They also felt the need to parenthetically comment on every outrageous remark the interviewee uttered, rather than let the reader evaluate it himself.

I've done journalistic interviews myself and have taken the liberty of editing also, even though my interviewee was quite articulate. And when he made what I felt was several very controversial statements, I asked him if that was "on the record", and gave him a chance to reconsider.

Well, the KKK guy was a profoundly ignorant and vicious man, but I felt that it was unfair to treat him that way in the interview.