After Howard Dean informed Katie Couric that 2+2 was in fact 4 and not as she was claiming 2.718, Matt Lauer followed up the next day claiming that Dean's assertion was "technically correct." Now, that phrase is not without potential validity. Statements can be "technically correct" while being misleading and obscuring a broader truth. But that is in fact one of the reasons why us in the shrillosphere are a wee bit annoyed at the fact that the Washington Post is still aggressively pushing its "Abramoff directed donations to both parties." Because that fact, while it may be (though there isn't even much evidence for it) "technically correct" it does actually obscure the broader truth. If by directed donations they mean "Abramoff once suggested that a client give money to a Democrat" then they claim to have evidence to support that. But the broader truth is that overall Abramoff reduced the amount of giving to Democrats by his clients, something which should be no surprise given his clearly stated intentions.
So when Lauer calls something "technically correct" in a way which implies it's somehow misleading he's full of shit.
