How do you feel about the journalistic norms of objectivity and balance in reporting environmental stories?

What does it mean to be “objective” in reporting on climate scientists’ forecasts? Should such reports be

“balanced” with dissenting views? Or is the public sphere better off having transparency, that is, knowing the bias of a particular news source and reading it as expertise from a particular perspective? Boykoff, McNatt, and Goodman (2015) caution about “information silos,” where people visit only those news or information sources with which they agree. How often (if at all) have you checked out “opposing” news sources?