Why We Need To Hear Both Sides Of 'The Bleach Debate'
Yesterday during a White House Coronavirus Task Force Briefing, Donald Trump suggested that ingesting household disinfectants might be a worthwhile solution to investigate in curing the virus. Now you might recognize this as a bad idea. Doesn't putting cleaners in the tum-tum make you sick-sick and even possibly dead-dead? That's true, and why mom would put those delicious looking concoctions on the high shelf growing up. But if you're a reader of The New York Times, then you're surely aware that there are two sides to any story, and you'd be right. After some hard-nosed investigative journalism, the Times concluded this:
"Some experts" feel ingesting household disinfectants could be dangerous. If you find the notion that there isn't a consensus opinion on whether drinking bleach is bad for you to be absurd, then we have to have a serious conversation with you about the importance of balanced journalism. We must hear out both sides of the drinking bleach debate because who is The New York Times to claim if one side is right over the other? Some experts think using household disinfectants to kill Coronavirus could be dangerous. Maybe some experts think it'll turn you into The Clorox Man ("OH, YEEEEEAAAAHHHH!"). Who's to say? We don't have time to ask all the experts.
It's important, above all else, that the Times remains free of bias. If you're thinking, "This goes beyond bias. To so severely understate the fact that drinking bleach can kill you, basically lends credence to the notion that it might actually not," then once again we have to tell you what's what. Even facts need to be balanced. If one side says the sky is blue, then it's essential that we consider any claim that says the sky is red. Eventually, we land on the sky being purple, which we know to be the truth.
Could this strict adherence to "truth" be because the Times has made a concerted effort to hire columnists who appeal to Conservative viewpoints and to find ways to balance the deluge of anti-Trump-based-stances that his lunacy inevitably creates? No. That's incorrect. If Trump said something you found to be untrue or off, it is only because you're a Lib, and not because it is objectively false. Being an elite journalistic publication means investigating all angles of a story, no matter how stupid those other angles might be. At least, some experts think so.