Identify the edited boundary
A clip can be authentic in the sense that the words were spoken while still omitting a crucial continuation. Note where it starts and ends, whether the question is included and whether a cut interrupts the answer. The relevant verification task is the complete exchange, not merely whether the voice or image has been synthesised.
Find the original interview or longer segment
Use the broadcaster’s full upload or a reliable published transcript where available. Match the exact wording and sequence, then continue beyond the circulating clip. Full Fact’s February 2024 example concerned a televised verbal slip whose immediate correction was omitted in a shorter version. The principle is to inspect nearby context, not assume every disputed clip contains a correction.
Distinguish a correction from a later change of position
An immediate self-correction can clarify what the speaker intended in that answer. A statement made days later is different evidence and should be dated separately. Keep both records if both are relevant. Do not silently splice a later response into the original interview as though the audience heard it at the same time.
Quote the exchange fairly
If discussing the error, include the correction or explain plainly that it followed. If no correction exists in the full source, do not invent one to defend the speaker. The aim is accurate context in either direction. A useful correction links the fuller segment and describes the missing continuation without turning a few clipped seconds into a claim about every view the person holds.
Questions, answered
Can a genuine clip still be misleading?
Yes. It can omit context such as an immediate correction.
Should a later statement be presented as part of the original exchange?
No. Keep its date and context separate.