I'm going to pick "whatever else". The part that most successfully created a false narrative (successfully enough to get Trekky and Saddam supporting it - make of that what you will) is of course the implication that Trump somehow showed a lack of understanding of American history. He simply did not - a new meaning was forced onto his words, and so far it backfired on the media that tried it.
The article is off to a fantastic start with 'Remarks by Donald Trump, aired Monday, showed presidential uncertainty about the origin and necessity of the Civil War, a defining event in U.S. history with slavery at its core.' The Daily Progress (lol, that name) attempts to conflate the idea that the Civil War may have been preventable with uncertainty about why it happened in the first place. It's a cheap attempt at manipulating Trump's actual message.
People don't realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why? People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?i genuinely don't understand how it's unreasonable to characterize this remark as expressing uncertainty about why the civil war happened and why it could not have been prevented; or, "uncertainty about the origin and necessity of the civil war."
1) "People don't realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why? People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War?" <- uncertainty about the origin
2) "Why could that one not have been worked out?" <- uncertainty about necessity
not even trying to be snide here. am i missing something? this all seems like textbook journalism to me.
ninja edit: are you interpreting trump as saying "People don't realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why [couldn't it have been worked out peacefully]? People don't ask that question, but why was there [a violent civil war instead of a political arbitration]? Why could that one not have been worked out?"
'"People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?"
In fact, the causes of the Civil War are frequently discussed, from middle school classrooms to university lecture halls and in countless books. Immigrants seeking to become naturalized are sometimes asked to name a cause of the war in their citizenship tests .'
Again, we go from "People don't really talk about why this couldn't have been worked out" (regardless of whether this statement is true or not) to "lol he thinks history isn't taught in schools and also IMMIGRANTS KNOW THIS DU-UH".
he doesn't say people don't talk about why it couldn't have been worked out; he says people don't really talk about why it happened. both statements are categorically false. lots of people have spent a great deal of time talking about both. it's an odd statement for the president of the united states to make.
why the civil war happened, and why it couldn't be worked out, are questions that historians and political science have been asking themselves, and teaching in americans schools, since it happened.
it seems like what you want media outlets to do is
not take the president's words at face value and instead try to come up with the most charitable possible interpretation of what he says so as not to embarrass him. i don't get how that's avoiding false narratives. that sounds like agitprop.
i guess ultimately i again agree with rooster: being shitty at communicating his thoughts isn't on anyone but him. it's not the media's job to be his friend and parse his words into whatever makes him look the least stupid.