From the mother country, an industrial dose of sanity:
Reporters for BBC News are being directed to significantly curb the amount of air time they give to people with anti-science viewpoints--including people who deny climate change exists--in order to improve the accuracy and fairness of the network’s news coverage....
In order to be neutral when covering science ... the BBC noted it needs to avoid "false balance," a fallacy that occurs when two sides of an argument are assumed to have equal value.
ClimateProgress goes on to remark that, here at home, the "[the 'false balance'] debate makes the network look like it’s being balanced, giving equal opportunity to opposite viewpoints." In that, there is unquestionable truth. But I would add that commensurate, if not superior, to that is our newsiness-entertainment complex's need for on-air, dramatic conflict. ClimateProgress' story features, for instance, a photo of science-tutor Bill Nye debating the right-wing talking point memo that is S.E. Cupp on climate change, which is far less a debate than an obscenity.
American viewers don't want to watch the news. They want to see a fight. And that's precisely what the programming of "false balance" provides.