I can't watch the linked video (unless I start messing about with the VPN), but other channels have been doing similar. Some may be because they don't want to report on 'facts' that have been widely discredited, but I suspect a lot of channels are doing it purely for the drama so they can cause controversy and sensation by - gasp! - cutting away from the president!!! Look at this channel! So daring! So edgy! Watch us now! You never know what crazy/outrageous thing we'll do next!

The question of balance and accuracy in mainstream media is obviously a difficult one. You want people to be free to say what they want, but at the same time you don't want to give airtime to liars who mislead people with obvious untruths. Not talking about Trump at all here, it's a wider issue. We have this across all sorts of topics, where channels that are supposedly (or do even actually try to be) impartial are fastidious in giving airtime to opponents of any reported view. For example, despite near unanimity amongst climate scientists on the subject of human-caused climate change, many channels will allow a climate-skeptic equal airtime, even though they're representing a tiny minority view. But channels decide for themselves on what is 'too much', for example here in the UK if there is someone talking about evolution, the channels are unlikely to give airtime to creationists, because evolution has become established fact. I suspect in other countries this standard may be different. But the line is always drawn somewhere. If someone says a problem is 'global', then there aren't going to be many channels giving airtime to flat-earthers disputing the world 'globe'.

The question is where to draw the line, and what constitutes 'truth'. No easy answer.