Even though this is written in terms of climate science, it really applies in general to science and science reporting, but has added importance for any science that has political controversy attached to it — politics involves swaying public opinion, and that often doesn’t involve (indeed, often actively avoids) factual information.
Media thrives on controversy, which produces ratings and advertising revenue. As a result, it is structured into an ‘on the one hand, on the other hand’ binary argument. Any broadcast that pits a climate change skeptic against a serious climate scientist is automatically a win for the skeptic, since a false position is being given equal time and legitimacy.
This doesn’t have to be in the context of a debate — it is true in stories as well. Any story about how vaccinations don’t cause autism but included any response from Jenny McCarthy, was giving credence to a position that has no scientific support. This is playing out even now as the creationists try to adopt global warming as another cause, and attempt the balanced teaching/teach the controversy approach. Which, scientifically speaking, is insane, because schoolchildren aren’t in a position to decide what constitutes good science.
Science is a meritocracy, not a democracy. Crappy ideas, ones without the support of evidence, do not merit equal time in scientific discussions. You do not get free admission and a seat at the table — there’s a “you must be this tall” sign against which you must compare your evidence and methodology. The media need to learn this.