I happen to have followed the CSM for decades, and always relied upon it for both sides of a story. They do not seem to have a political agenda, nor do they tend to jump upon emotional issues.

David Broder wrote a book on the errors of "balanced reporting". Should all sides of every issue get equal coverage, or coverage without judgment?

Should people who think that the Moon landings were fake get equal time with reporting on the Apollo missions? Obviously not. How about "Intelligent Design" as contrasted with evolution? Simply because a significant number of people believe in something, does that make it worthy of reporting as if had any meaning? Or global warming? Absolutely man-caused, beyond any doubt. Does the energy company sponsored propaganda deserve equal time simply because some dupes act as if they believe it?

Giving nonsense equal or balanced coverage is irresponsible folly. Sometimes "balanced" is a disservice.