Most people should make all statements with the assistance of professional PR if they’re in such a situation. Just like how anyone being interrogated by the police should only speak with the advice with a lawyer, no matter how innocent they actually are.
Quick edit due to downmods: dear partisan Americans: I don't particularly care for either side of your politics. I'm not saying Fox is any better, and I think Donald Trump's a nasty and very hypocritical individual. But 1 and 3 are easily proven false on video, and 2 is clearly different from the content of the Damore memo, which you can read online. You're lying to yourself if you refuse to believe evidence about CNN fabricating any of these stories.
As @Notradamus says before, giving a quote to a journalist allows them to shape the story. There is no reason to do that: you can self publish and still reach the masses in your own words, without risking someone else cutting video, lying about you, or denying something happened even when they filmed it themselves.
Claiming systematic bias can also lead to that would have been fine in contrast, maybe even mentioning it has happened vaugely and bringing up your CNN example when challenged.
The down votes are likely because your post could seemingly be summarized as "but Fake News" which has people on edge. Sure that isn't what you said but your phrasing makes that an easy mistake to make as a reader.
Well the general implication in the paresnt discussing fabrication as 'the ill of a single writer' and that a reputable publication should curtail them. You're right in that a 'reputable publication' may also simply deliberately craft lies as an organisation, rather than this happening as the result of the individual journalist.
> The down votes are likely because your post could seemingly be summarized as "but Fake News" which has people on edge.
Hence the edit restating that every single one of those is either well known or provable. Anyone can watch the unedited fish feeding video, read Damore's original memo, or see the CNN interview wherethe Obama admin talks about sepration happening. Something being a popular saying doesn't make it untrue. A more simple an likely explanation is that a US citizen's understanding of reality is now determined on a tribal basis rather than a factual one.
But news organizations lie. All of them do and they do it on a routine basis.
On the topic of your examples:
1. It appears that the article recognizes the normality in its last sentence, so this was corrected 2. I don't see anything in the Damore article (http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/15/technology/culture/james-dam...) that seemed to disagree with his memo unless I am missing a subtly. 3. This seems to be a failure to acknowledge and not a fabrication best I can tell (too difficult to find what disputes the original comment)
These seems to be examples where CNN has corrected the stories quietly instead of issuing a retraction best I can tell which while I agree is annoying at least is ensuring the latest version of the article is as accurate as possible (including in "accuracy" intended tone here). How to best handle such corrections is hard.
In TV all bets are off. I fully understand why people come in the front of TV cameras and spout only canned responses that say noting. Even the most innocent you say can be edited in a way that changes the narrative completely. Joe Nobody should never volunteer to be in the front of cameras if they are the source of bad news. It's completely adversarial setting and editing can change everything.
If I remwmber correctly, there was a case in Florida where one of the big 4 news agencies cut word out of a 911 call to make it more inflammatory.
If you're interested in winning an argument in public debate, then giving your opposition the chance to see your first rebuttal before they've publish their first attack is a huge, huge handicap.
One journalistic technique to get info from an unwilling subject is to make up a dramatic lie, and then record the rebuttal.
"I hear you're going to close your North American factory, laying off 5,000 workers"
"No no, we're not closing the factory, and it's only 400 staff who'll lose their jobs."
Say your friend exits for an undisclosed sum and you want to know how much:
> "What was your exit price?"
> "Dude I can't tell you."
Compare this with:
> "Was the cash part 84 million US?
> "No way man, like half that"
Your friend existed for around 40 million US.
Ethics are up to you.
As they should. Its the duty of the journalist to be correct in what they publish. Not getting an interview is no excuse.
*EDITED for clarification.
Attitude toward journalists these days, partly because of more professionalised PR is hugely adversarial rather than co-operative. Anyway /rant.