Certainly. TV shows can edit interviews, but there are limits to how much, especially when the editing could be considered defamatory, deceptive, or intentional

Certainly. TV shows can edit interviews, but there are limits to how much, especially when the editing could be considered defamatory, deceptive, or intentionally misleading in a way that harms someone’s reputation. What Trump is alleging is a bit thin. He is saying that 60 Minutes edited the episode so much so that it favored her during the presidential campaign. The lawsuit claims that CBS's actions amounted to election interference. I think that's really thin but I also don't think he intends to win this lawsuit. I mean seriously, $10bn? That's ludicrous. What the strategy may be is to draw out the attention and belief among his supporters that the media is biased, and to use the discovery process to prove it. Either way, it's embarrassing for 60 Minutes, embarrassing for their journalists, and could reveal things they did not want revealed. Who knows. IANAL but I do work on public policy for over 12 years: This is building cases and decisions around the media and election interference. It is painting and building a long view case that the mainstream media is bias, and when they engage in perceived bias, that is election interference. One more thing.. This also connects with the "Equal Time Rule" (also known as the Equal Opportunities Rule) which is part of Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934. It requires that if a broadcast station (TV or radio) gives airtime to one legally qualified candidate for public office, it must offer equal opportunities to all other candidates for the same office. In Trumps case, 60 Minutes offered and engaged in airtime for Harris, but his claim might be that they deceptively then edited that video to favor her deprived him of his equal time, and created election interference. We could get into the Fairness Doctrine but this is getting quite long; a Truman initiative, rescinded by Reagan.