Primarily by their literal wording. A president has a special duty to speak clearly when discussing attacks on American cities.

Primarily by the full context. Viral excerpts should not determine judgement when surrounding remarks materially change the likely meaning.

Both matter equally. Poor wording can be legitimately criticised even when the most extreme interpretation is not supported by context.

The media should publish the unedited sequence first. Interpretation should follow only after audiences can see what immediately preceded and followed the remark.

Political opponents are entitled to highlight dangerous ambiguity. Leaders must anticipate how adversaries and the public may understand their words. f. The controversy is mainly evidence of the weakness of clip-based politics.

Independent fact-checking should carry greater weight than partisan interpretations when the meaning of a viral quotation is genuinely disputed.