Here's a classic example of the perversity that can arise out of “balanced” media coverage of climate change. This Detroit News story purports to give evenhanded coverage to a story about a science teacher who have the temerity to show An Inconvenient Truth in her classroom, only to endure criticism from people who dispute its underlying “philosophy.”
The worst part was the list of additional sources that the News provides. The offer a couple of very serious science sites - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and th Environmental Protection Agency. And they offer a couple of “public service” sites offering honest-to-goodness educational material on climate change. Then they add the “other side:” the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Natural Resources Stewardship Project.
So, you wind up with legitimate science “balanced” by two groups: one (CEI) which has a climate change position that is so discredited that even Exxon Mobil won't give them money any more; and the other (NRSP) which is led by a phoney climate change “expert” (Tim Ball) who has done almost no research in the field, who barely ever published and who consistently finds it necessary to misrepresent his credentials to get people to take him seriously.
This is not balanced journalism. It's slop.