Media Mulligan

   Amateur golfers are fond of "taking a mulligan," or not counting a swing when they miss or they send the ball to a particularly undesirable place.
   Political candidates, however, have no such option. Instead, they blame the news media for 1/ misquoting them or 2/ taking their comment out of context or 3/ deliberating emphasizing one comment when others in the speech are, to them, "far more important," and reporters do all this because they are 4/ unfair, incompetent, and out to sabotage their candidacy.
   Or all of the above.

   Here are the defenses:
   1/ To the charge of misquoting, roll the video.
   2/ Out of context, roll the full video.
   3/ The comment quoted has more news value. Other elements of the speech are also used later in the coverage.
   4/ Any sabotage that happens comes from your own speech and actions.

   Some candidates try to walk back comments from negative reactions by rephrasing, claiming "what I really meant was ..." Response: We report what you said. If you meant something else, you should have said something else.
   Others double down on what they said, and insist that reporters "are just picking on me. They're all unfair."
   Another tactic is to accuse news media of bias, selecting some aspects of the speech when the candidate insists some other aspect of the speech is more important. Sorry, Mr. Candidate, you don't get to decide how the news story is handled. You don't control the press.
   Journalists don't destroy your credibility; you do that well enough on your own.

   A political candidate who happens to own several golf courses is no doubt aware that newbie golfers try to take a mulligan when something they do lands in the rough.
   That, however, does not apply in politics. You don't get a do-over when something you say or do puts your ball in deep water.
   This week, GOP candidate Donald Trump pointed out that if Hillary Clinton becomes President, she will destroy the Second Amendment, unless gun owners take some action. After the backfire, Trump and his supporters tried to explain that he meant such people should exercise their right to vote, thus presenting a Clinton presidency.
   But that's not what he said. If that's what he meant to say, he should have said that in the first place.
   Moreover, an important thing to remember is that Presidents cannot change the Constitution on their own. An amendment must first be proposed and approved by Congress, then submitted to the states, where a two-thirds majority of all the states is needed before the change becomes valid.
   Meanwhile, many Americans, including many leaders of his own party, criticized the Republican nominee for his remarks, which many took to suggest an assassination attempt on the Democratic candidate after a victory in the November general election.
   The mulligan cry immediately went up, with a chorus of Trump supporters chanting the usual claims of being misquoted, what he really meant was encouraging voter turnout, and that the news media deliberately distorted his words.
   Distorted? Roll the video.
   Misquoted? Roll the video.
   Meant something else? This game is not for duffers. Say what you mean the first time.
   As for not having news value, what can be more important than a threat -- real or implied -- to assassinate a sitting President of the United States of America? Or even a candidate for that office.