Is it your position that the journalists in this case should have unanimously agreed not to report what the head of their state specifically communicated to them at a press conference he called? Should they have presented those comments uncritically, thereby implying that the scientific establishment was (under the orders of the President) investigating the possibility of injecting disinfectant into people?
Not at all, it is my position that they shouldn't lie. If the problem is that Trump expressed a dangerous misunderstanding of disinfectants, then their headline could certainly be President Trump States Dangerous Misunderstanding of Disinfectants. If there is an ongoing trend of people misusing household cleaners and hurting themselves, and you want to report on that context for Trump's statements, that would be completely reasonable, and critical of Trump's statement, and truthful.
Instead we got stories that implied he was recommending people try to disinfect themselves, followed closely by other stories pretending there was a subsequent spike in people trying to do so.
...and explicitly states there is no way to be sure bleach poisonings relate to Trump's comments.
I will post this again:
The National Poison Data System saw the growth of poisonings start weeks earlier.
arstechnica.com
That article above was published on the 14th of May, and Time published on the 13th. Both that article and the Time article use the data from
the National Poison Data System. Time claims it was using the most recent publishing, and on Ars Technica, where the author posts the graphs of daily data from that system, he says that data was published on Tuesday. The Tuesday before was the 12th. Both authors were using literally the same source data. Yet somehow, one managed to post graphs from the source showing the daily breakdown of cases, and the other could only provide monthly aggregates that allowed for statistical ambiguity which could be speculated on.
I suppose you could claim that is a product of genuine incompetence on the part of the person writing, but when
the person writing is a prolific science author, and a long-time contributor to Time Magazine (specifically their science coverage), who has taught journalism, it becomes difficult for me to imagine that.