I can't say I agree. Granted that you're talking to a hair-splitter here, but the edited sections would definitely change the tone of the answers. While the substance was mostly left intact, tone means a heck of a lot in politics, seeing as how the entire area is governed by perception rather than reality.

I think ABC did Palin a disservice with this particular edit, and I don't even like Palin.

That said, it IS a very common occurence. Many news interviews go on for an hour, but are parsed down to ten minutes, so the same thing DOES happen with depressing regularity...

That is disgusting, more media bull shit.

I certainly agree you can't do away with edits due to obvious time constraints.

With that said, when you start moving an answer to one question to make it appear as the answer to another question even if it is just phrased differently ...or when you remove 3 sentences from a 4 sentence question you've gone a bit farther than compressing things. You're changing the entire tone and texture of the interview.

Put simply its ok to cut some of the boring/slow parts and move straight to the interesting parts but when you have a candidate whose competence in foreign policy is the subject of heated debate, I find it completely ridiculous for them to edit out some 13 paragraphs worth of responses to foreign policy questions.

As nonname pointed out, you don't have to like the woman to see what was done here. It should outrage people a lot more than it seems to that the media is influencing things so heavily. I doubt many of the folks who are saying "no biggie" would be as dismissive if it was O'Reilly who had done this type of editing on Obama...no I think we all know the chants of "Down with Faux News" would have drowned the internet in a sea of outrage if that had happened...and I dare someone to tell me otherwise without bursting into laughter...

The substance of many of her answers was changed. For example, in the statements regarding Russia, they edited out the parts where she said (repeatedly) that she thought we should not enter back into a cold war, and parts where she emphasized the importance of our diplomatic relationship with Russia. The only parts they left in were statements saying we 'have to keep an eye on' Russia, or that we should defend Georgia if they were part of Nato. The statements were edited to sound much more aggressive and uneducated than her actual responses were when taken in context.

What these edits did was, they removed balance from her statements. Her full statements were measured, well thought out, and had balance, the edited versions of those same statements seemed overly suspicious of Russia, and frankly, made it sound like she was hinting at another Cold War, something she's clearly against when you read the whole transcript.

If you honestly believe that the substance of her answers was not changed by these edits, there's not much hope in reasoning with you. Like sqrl said, it's about principal. If a news organization had done the same thing to Obama, I would be outraged over that as well, even though I disagree with Obama on just about everything.

Even noname2200, who doesn't like Palin, sees how ABC was unfair in their editing.

Remember kids, there's no such thing as the 'liberal media'. That's just a lie made up by Rush Limbaugh and his best friend Lucifer to scare you. The only news channel that has an agenda is those evil conservative alien demons over at Fox.

Wow.

Just wow. The edited portions completely change the tone of the interview.

I don't like Palin, and I really don't want her to have any position of authority over america, but that's still BS. And I do think a liberal media exists, but it's a yin and yang situation. There is definately conservative media too.

But trying to blame everything bad on the liberal media is silly. It definately exists, but that's not always the cause of making a candidate look bad. Sometimes they just look bad. Same goes the other way around.

But this case just looks like flat out bad journalism anyway you slice it. That's editted to make her look waaay more radical than she actually was coming across.

Still making the connection between Iraq and Islamic terrorists.

Cutting mid sentence is pretty fukn bad ill agree with that.

They did the same with ahmajinadad's interviews in case you wondered.

It's almost like ABC didn't want to make her seem reasonable, logical and way too liberal for a republican candidate. They have their narrative and their sticking to it.

Why is this only available on conservative news websites??

Is this legit, im trying to find the real ABC Palin interview transcript unedited from an official ABC document?

I looked into it a bit. The source for this info seems to indicate that the transcript I listed originally is potentially not even the complete transcript.  So you are both right and wrong. This is not the complete transcript but everything in it is repeated on the ABC website as part of the interview and appears to have been taken from the article linked below where it refers to them as excerpts implying there is even more of the interview that was not seen or was edited out.

Source