Global Warming is setting records for bias in reporting. Something like 97% of articles in the MSM are sounding the horns of catrostraphic global warming, while only 3% offer balanced coverage. I really think Hitler had more balanced coverage than global warming skeptics.
If "balanced coverage" means getting a counterpoint quote from a member of the list of skeptics below:
List of scientists opposing global warming consensus
then it's not balanced, it's skewed in favor of the skeptics. Why? Because getting a quote from a skeptical source expressing the opinion that there might be some uncertainty about the results of a particular study increases the perception that there is uncertainty about the results of a particular study, even if there actually isn't much uncertainty!