Just so I've got this right

If a politician goes on CNN and makes a (dubious) conclusion which he claims is based on a classified document (which he doesn't produce), that's equivalent to this?

I guess the "exclusivity" analogy is that the interview was for CNN rather than at a press conference in front of all comers? Even though, the interview, in it's entirety is available to all networks and the document is avilable to none?

And his description of an unamed document in an interview to one channel is equivalent to 40,000 hours of footage.

Damn, that's a reach.