Unauthorized editing of an interview can be deterred by having an advisor or handler or whatever they call the PR type people who accompany a candidate - tape the ensuing interview whether in sight or surruptitiously - so the interviewer and producers know the full length unedited version is available for rebuttal and clarification.
If someone writes in a publication, unauthorized editing is liable - so should verbal be protected from messing around with content response or removal.
Someone should advise the Palin group to avoid future problems. She has enough mud slinging in the few months she has been campaigning and all we do is discuss it - it should be stopped - or better - no interviews without a signed approval before airing or press.
My question is what is "unauthorized editing"? A candidate sits down with a news crew for an hour (two if they're lucky) and answers questions. Then the producer works with an editor to cut that 60-120 minutes down to the 15-20 minutes of air time they actually have.
How does one say what is "unauthorized editing" and what was simply editing?
The real solution to this is let the woman do more interviews - LIVE interviews! No editing. No problem. And let her do more than one every 10 days! And let Sarah be Sarah!
/ end rant