Erm, in your message you posted? "But the edit did not materially alter the message from the full speech.
Arguably it watered it down.". This bit is clearly a defence of what they did. But then you're being disingenuous in arguing that, so I'll bid you a good evening and leave it at that.

Well you are for a start. Apparently it's fine to misrepresent quotes if you believe that it matches your view of the intent. Johann Hari did that, and was out of journalism for a decade. George Eaton did that, and his journalistic career is only just recovering

Slicing and dicing a speech and then presenting it as verbatim is unacceptable. They could have used the same clips and presented them as separate clips. But instead they were presented as a single passage. That is a basic requirement of journalism. Defending it only further destroys confidence

The edit brought together phrases from different parts of the speech in such a way that it made it seem it was a single section. That's terrible journalism and wouldn't be accepted if done to a UK politician. It's something that undermines trust in BBC News

Amazing whataboutery. Both Trump and the misleading editing of his speech can be bad at the same time. And Trump is a foreign head of state, while the BBC is a core British institution. So forgive me if I focus on the British bit and mostly ignore the internal politics of a different country