Criticism of "Balance" in Environmental Reporting

In January, Joseph Romm, scientist and former Department of Energy official, said that climate change skeptics are a dwindling lot. In fact, they are a small enough group to be stuffed in a shower stall, he said.
Romm appeared on Environment and Energy webcast OnPoint on January 16, interviewed by Monica Trauzzi.
When asked why conservative climate skeptics are so successful in getting their message out, Romm said that they are better at rhetoric. They are also very well funded. He mentioned a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists that found that “Exxon Mobil [is] pumping millions and millions of dollars into shadow groups and conservative think tanks.”
In addressing the media’s penchant for trotting out climate skeptics in the name of “balanced reporting,” Romm had the following to say:

“the media has this notion that you have to give both sides
equal time, even if, in this case, 99.9 percent of the scientists
believe one thing and a small number of scientists, usually
funded by the fossil fuel industry, state another thing. And
I just think the media coverage has been incomplete. There
have been a lot of stories about recent heat waves or the
record wildfire season that hasn't talked about the impact
that climate is having on that. This is a tricky subject, but
I think it's incumbent on the media to understand what's
going on and report what the growing, emerging consensus
is and not spend a lot of time with industry flaks who are
spreading disinformation.”

Here, here! There has been much criticism of the media for giving a platform to a tiny group of scientists who make a lot of noise on behalf of their corporate sponsors. Balanced reporting should mean exactly that—give a proportionate amount of space each side.