I think this is one of the most important points: "That said, they can also find support for their ideas in the mainstream media—because when the mainstream me

I think this is one of the most important points: "That said, they can also find support for their ideas in the mainstream media—because when the mainstream media gives a so-called balanced view, it’s often misleading. The media thinks that because one side says climate change is real and dangerous, the other view is that it’s not real and not dangerous. That doesn’t reflect the fact that something like 98 percent of climate scientists agree that global warming is real and dangerous. And this happens with everything from genetically modified foods to evolution." It is not just in science. It is in everything, including politics. The (modern) concept of the unbiased view has turned into a "ask both sides of the argument". Which can work when (say) you are in an election campaign. But take a scientist and a charismatic charlatan: the scientist tries to give the right view (with all the ifs and buts) and the charlatan gives a appealing and simple to understand story... though completely wrong. I don't blame the reader/viewer for not being persuaded by the scientist. The idea that, for example, a group of us could join forces and argue that the oil spill is really a good thing for the biology of the mexican gulf, and we would be given equal time with the guy who's done 10 years of study in it... that does not help the viewer. The journalist seem to have forgotten their role of gatekeepers, and fact checking. They seem to be just there repeating verbatim what he or she says: sure, it makes their job easier, but it really doesn't help their readership.