A debunking tactic that consists in accusing opponents of spreading "misleading" informations on the basis of an arbitrary and blatantly partial interpretation of the latter.
When compromising official documents (quotes, mails, statistics, studies, etc.) that refute the mainstream narrative are starting to circulate, and the latter cannot hide or directly discredit them in any way, "debunkers" try to downplay their signifiance by discrediting the way they're been reported instead; for example by keep repeating that such domuments "never stated" what reporters are saying, and deny any implication (no matter how strong) on the basis of a lack of an explicit statement in the same exact terms.
If this can't be done, it is claimed that reporters tried to distort the content of those documents, then justify this accusation by making up an alternative ad-hoc interpretation of what those documents are allegedly "really" supposed to say, one that assolves the establishment from any charges and saves the mainstream narrative, presenting the ad-hoc interpretation as it was somehow more accurate than the basic one, without ever explaining how.
In alternative, reporters are accused of taking quotes "out of context" in order to "mislead" the audience; irrelevant information and red herrings are then added and presented as the alleged missing "context" that somehow debunks their claims.