President Donald Trump allegedly had a colorful way to describe El Salvador, Haiti and certain African countries during a meeting on Thursday. The report made international headlines. Many United States citizens near and far — those supporting and opposing Trump alike — expressed their disgust over the alleged comments.

People who call those nations home were especially outraged. They have every right to be.

The news circulating the worldwide media proves to be an interesting case study. Many organizations have elected to print and discuss the comment verbatim.

Television outlets like NBC and CNN used the phrase in all of its vulgarity. Print sources ranging from Time to the Guardian to the Washington Post let the uncensored comment grace their websites and pages.

Others refused to aid in the spreading of such vulgar content. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette tweeted Thursday night, explaining that its publisher requested the removal of Trump’s boorish language from the lead in the Associated Press story.

The thread of replies to that tweet alone brings up points to consider. Many argued that the public is entitled to know exactly what it was the president said. Another said that it’s quoting a person in a position of power, which is different than publishing a distasteful remark from a writer representing the paper itself.

Many commenters, whether agreeing or not, were thankful for the Post-Gazette’s transparency.

Is not printing the quote whitewashing the incident? That’s a debate that’s worth having. This is a fine line to walk in the journalism industry.

The Washington Daily News strives each day to report the news fairly and accurately. The staff is also opposed to offending the sensibilities of its readers. So, the WDN also wouldn’t publish comments of this nature.

It’s difficult to say whether there’s a right and wrong take in this scenario. With social media and the abundance of outlets, the truth is almost always out there somewhere. There are different ways to report it. The WDN would rather err on the side of not offending its readers than to report similarly vulgar content in its entirety.