Reporting both sides of the issue might work for political stories but holy shit is a bad format for stories about science
"The scientific debate over global warming…" There isn’t one. Neither is there scientific debate over evolution. There is a social debate but pretending there’s any objective scientific doubt they’re happening is a lie
"The autism/vaccine link is controversial…" ‘Controversial’ is not a synonym for ‘completely false’.
Imagine if someone said “Kenya is a country in Africa” and another person responded “NO ITS IN ASIA”. Do you think reporters would even pay attention the second person’s claim? No, because they know its false and there is absolutely no debate over Kenya’s location. Yet when scientific stories are covered suddenly objectivity should be ignored, and fringe views with no evidence are given credence in a effort to “report both sides” of a issue that only has one side
we’d probably already have hoverboards if we didn’t spend so much time arguing over whether women are people and if they should be allowed to do science