In response to a recent report recommending that the BBC stop giving air time to deniers, Liz Peek has a column at the Fiscal Times where she complains that, "Media Bias Censors the Debate on Climate Change." She puts forward the usual denier distractions and manufactured scandals to try and convince readers that skeptics are actually victims persecuted by the scientific-media-complex.
Peeks points to the BBC, LA Times, and Popular Science as examples of media outlets that have started refusing to publish letters that challenge the scientific consensus on climate change. She then finds it ironic that Americans remain unconvinced, as though the the outsized influence of deniers in the media weren't a major contributor to peoples' uncertainty!
Katrina vanden Heuvel approaches the issue of false balance from the opposite angle in the Washington Post. She writes that when there is an overwhelming consensus from experts, "forcing balance where there is none is not journalistically ethical." We couldn’t have said it better ourselves, so we'll let Katrina have the last word: "[I]f the scale tips in favor of the truth, that’s not imbalanced reporting. That’s journalism."