A carefully drafted law against circulating that sort of material without a label might be alright. But I very much don't want to see this law, with low specificity and felony penalties, used to criminalize dubious editing. After all, we already have libel laws, so this is largely going to be used where those fail to apply.

If you cut a real interview answer to align with a different question than was asked, is that altered to a false appearance? What if it's done in good faith, to streamline out an interviewer's request for clarification?

If you share real, unedited footage of someone, but end it before they give a caveat to their comment, is that an authentic record of their speech? How about if you cut off a more serious inversion, like "what my opponents want you to think I'd say..." What about footage of a fight that starts too late and misrepresents the aggressor?

Weirdest of all, if you edit an interview favorably, is that a felony? Since this isn't a libel law but a public-interest law, could cutting out a stupid answer or trimming filler words form an inauthentic record of someone's speech?

(Actually, even worse: a slightly broad reading of 1B and 2A suggests that it's even possible to commit this crime without intent. The fake need not be purposefully misleading, and intent to facilitate criminal conduct doesn't necessarily require knowledge that the conduct facilitated would be criminal.)

This law does a pretty good job of saying that it's illegal to computer generate a video of a politician taking a bribe. But even if deceptive editing ought to be illegal, I think accomplishing that with this definition and these penalties would be disastrously unclear.

I agree. A world where edited interviews must air with a disclaimer that it has been edited to remove certain portions might be extremely beneficial.

Almost every prerecorded interview would carry the disclaimer, rendering it meaningless. Though it would be fun to see "fake reaction" every time they splice in footage of the interviewer nodding, smiling, scowling, etc.

Almost every prerecorded interview presented as they currently are would carry the disclaimer. It might cause interviews to be presented differently (either ruthlessly trying to keep on topic, or with an easy link to the full interview), but even if not, having that disclaimer would be useful as an indicator that forced people to remember that what they are seeing might be out of context, and to look for that context.

Finally, I think it would give people more tools for going after the purveyors of misleading content. Either they would need to have a disclaimer, which could be pointed to for those that accepted the content without reservation, or they could face repercussions.

I see no problem with forcing people and organizations that purport to be representing a real situation but are instead presenting a view of that situation ideally suited to their own narrative to note they are doing so. Just because we've been conditioned to be tolerant of it in our media does not mean it's acceptable or needs to continue as it has.