There is a famous saying, that in one version goes like this:
I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how. [1]
Mutatis mutandis, something very similar can be said about filmmaking: it is of less importance exactly what someone says and of great importance who cuts and edit it.
Light or lack of light, missing context - this can be the exact questions asked that triggered the answer[2] or what the person said to qualify their statements [3]. There is music, sound effects, camera perspectives and so on and so on.
One can also lead the viewer towards a conclusion without spelling it out [4].
There is a reason militaries advice soldier that in case of capture we should say as little as absolutely possible outside of what one is legally required to say: name, rank, service number, and date of birth. Anything and everything can and probably will be abused.
This is true not only for opponents in a war but as probably everyone knows also with police in most of the world, and HN is keenly aware of this.
I'd argue that we should be equally aware when it comes to journalism: as much as I respect many journalists, they are not a homogeneous group of perfectly ethical people striving for perfect objectivity. They have personal agendas: fame, income, people and cases they sympathize with and people and cases theywant to hurt.
We should be aware of this when reading, watching or listening - but of course even more when answering questions.
Any competent defense attorney can tell
[1]: Supposedly said by Stalin in reference to a vote in the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, but exactly who said is is less important than the general idea.
[2]: can be as simple as this classic: asking the person "hypothetically, if you wanted to ... how would you have done it?"
[3]: Simple example: "Q: Have you cheated on your taxes? A: yes, <here the director cuts>, back in 1956 when I was 18 ..."
[4]: This is an actual example: Our public broadcaster in Norway mentioning that they had tried to investigate the economic transactions of some people, saying they couldn't do it and it was very confusing and ending that segment with a merry go round.
What they didn't mention was that Norwegian police had already investigated the same people over three years, several months secretly and had not only been unable to prove the crimes suggested, but gone as far as stating they found it proven that the accused were innocent.