Not surprisingly, with the outbreak of COVID 19 in the first half of 2020, scholars have raced to research or comment on how this global pandemic has impacted individuals, societies, and economies. Because of the global nature of the virus, international relations and politics have become important issues as the virus spread from country to country through international travel. Some of focus in dealing with the virus has been on the comparison of how nations deal with the virus as well as its origin and source. Hence, the way media in different nations have reported "facts" differs. While not new, post-truth politics and fake news have become a catch-cry of those who want to discredit those with different opinions (Gordon, 2018; Yee, 2017). This leads to the purpose of the rejoinder. The rejoinder responds to not one but two papers recently published in Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research. These papers are Zheng et al. (2020) and Wen et al. (2020). In response to these articles, the issues raised in the rejoinder highlights the need to critically evaluate all points of view and censorship in the media. Several issues necessitate a more balanced approach than that of Zheng et al. (2020) and Wen et al. (2020), for the Middle Way is often seen as most harmonious (Chen, 2002). Zheng et al. (2020) state "the suspected source of COVID-19 is a virus found in wild animals". To scientists' best knowledge, this is true but does not tell the whole story. Leaving aside the conspiracy theories that COVID-19 was human-made (Calisher et al., 2020), it is not just that COVID-19 is found in wild animals. The virus "jumped" from bats (Shereen et al., 2020), possibly via pangolins (Zhang et al., 2020) through human consumption in Wuhan (Huang et al., 2020), which may have been at a wet market, although there is some conjecture over that (ABC News, 2020). This was omitted in the Zheng et al. (2020) commentary. This is important because it has strong policy implications. China's wildlife protection law encouraged the domestication and breeding of wildlife for human consumption inadvertently leading to SARS and now COVID-19 (CNBC, 2020). Following the outbreak of SARS, a ban on the trade of wildlife was imposed before being lifted some time later (The Wall Street Journal, 2020). Mixed messages via enacted laws followed in 2014. While commercial farming of certain species, including tigers was allowed, in contrast, China criminalized consumption of protected species with a maximum three-year jail term as punishment (AP News, 2020). With the outbreak of COVID-19, Chinese authorities have again banned the trade of wild animals. Zheng et al. (2020) argue that, by some media reports labelling COVID-19 as "Chinese virus" this may lead to Chinese citizens experiencing mental health issues if they are to travel internationally in the future. While both Zheng et al. (2020) and Wen et al. (2020) lament some racist headlines in the international media, for the most part the virus is not referred to as a "Chines...