For once I agree with pelican.

The news reporting is far from perfect, however, the rapid news cycle and media means that what is news this morning is old hat this afternoon. The impact of this means that pieces with rigorously checked sources and information are of historical value only.

A government sponsored body enforcing ivory tower principles will result in sanitized documentary style out of date reporting.

I do support a requirement for retractions or corrections if errors occur, but not a big brother PC control of the media.

CARFAX: All scientific articles must be both peer reviewed and accepted for publishing in a relevant journal. If basic facts underlying the paper are incorrect it does not pass first base. Whilst not entirely bias free, the scientific journals are generally more rule based than the mainstream media.
If there are facts that backup an "alternative" view then they will also be published. The critics of CO2 based Global warming with climate science qualifications are very few indeed.
Almost all of the criticism comes from those outside the field and are based on either straw-man arguments or basic misunderstandings. Reference to the data set, and acknowledgement of the technical realities is non-existent. Whilst the scientists spend years verifying data, running models and being checked in public, the critics just lob falsehoods and half-truths that sound convincing.
Climate science *is* less verifiable than branches where repeated experiment is possible. Computer models are not as nice as a real world experiment...but: the models are based on known testable laws of physics (unlike economic models). The models are "proven" (tested) against real world data constantly. Chaos (butterfly effect) means that the outputs are *never* certain, but this does not mean completely irrelevant! There are valid criticisms to the climate science...but I've yet to see a valid one by a mainstream critic, who appear focus on the best spin. (easily digestible, but wrong!)
Whilst spin has been around forever, the current media landscape appears to be little but spin. Andrew Bolt regularly mis-quotes climate scientists, takes the naive interpretation of any science output to ridicule, and constantly plays political rhetoric. He is clearly a "gun for hire" and makes no attempts at balanced reporting.
Howard was very keen to counter the perceived bias in the ABC. No surprise that the Right has issues with similar ideas in their side of the court.
Good article...who watches the watchers?