They could have just not allowed an interview with him to air at all. He chose to lie and he got fact-checked. Just because you don't like the facts doesn't make them untrue.
"amazing" is a bit of a loaded term here. They edited the interview for misinformation. They told you what was edited out and why. Why do you have a problem with it? Do you prefer they don't tell you the interview was edited? Or not tell you what was edited out? Or not tell you why? I think it is the responsibility of the press to call out politicians that spread scientific misinformation that can endanger public health. Do you disagree?
This is so passive-aggressive it's hard to understand what you trying to say. I can make some guesses but I'd rather you elaborate.
LOL, Putin would certainly be proud, it's their job to put the interview out there and let me decide.
You're thinking of public access channels where people can say whatever crazy things they want. ABC didn't allow that to air for the same reason you want it to - by airing it on ABC without challenge it implicitly lends credibility to his false claims.
Actually, Putin would be proud of misinformation being propagated without challenge by the press, don't you think? You have it backwards.
For all the "good old days" things right-wingers lament are gone, they never seem to mention journalists holding public officials accountable for the truth
FoxNews has already shown that people have a tendency to gravitate towards reporting that agrees with their own thoughts and prejudices. So it’s important for journalists to just present what is rather than allow the muddying the water with half-truths and outright lies.