Nah. You don't have to show both sides when the evidence is stacked. We don't have to publicize the criminal's take when they're unanimously, unambiguously convicted of murder. It's one thing if there is ambiguity, and the collective opinion is undecided, but that's not the case here.

Drew's personal musings on the situation form a reasonable overview in this case. Even a fraction of the evidence publicized is enough to justify the label "toxic."