We wordsmiths have a principle that ‘a text without a context is a pretext’. This matters because of what some branches of the media have said about Donald Trump’s use of the word ‘bloodbath’. For instance, the Daily Digest news website asserted that in a speech in Ohio Trump ‘made the claim that if he doesn’t win in November, there will be a “bloodbath”.’ But that’s a single word ripped out of its context. In the speech he said he would put tariffs on cars manufactured abroad to protect America’s auto industry and prevent an industry ‘bloodbath’.Then he extended his point to cover all American industry. However, the New York Times (and other media outlets) interpreted Trump’s words as ‘doubling down on threats of political violence’. Donald Trump’s spokesman, Steven Cheung, defended Trump’s comments, insisting that Trump was only talking about the economy and the auto industry. On Truth social media on 18 March, Trump himself wrote. ‘The Fake News Media, and their Democrat Partners in the destruction of our Nation, pretended to be shocked at my use of the word BLOODBATH, even though they fully understood that I was simply referring to imports (of cars)… which are killing the automobile industry.’ When it first appeared in English (in 1814) ‘bloodbath’ meant a massacre on a battlefield. But by 1951 it was being used in sporting contexts to mean, ‘a violent or aggressive confrontation or contest’.And by 1967 it was being used metaphorically to mean ‘a dramatic loss or heavy defeat; specifically (in business) an instance of large financial losses or mass redundancy brought about by adverse economic conditions’ (Oxford English Dictionary). To pretend Trump was talking about political violence instead of China manufacturing cars in Mexico for the American market, is a wilful and deliberate distortion – a pretext for a dishonest, misleading attack on Trump: ‘a text without a context is a pretext’.