One aspect of journalism that has led to a sense of entitlement among the public, and certainly those who have dissenting opinions, is the idea of 'balance' in media coverage.   That is, showing both sides.

While balance is certainly fair, is it accurate and is it doing a service to the reader?  Are anti-GMO activists as legitimate as all of the scientists in the field?   Are anti-vaccine activists as legitimate as all of medicine?  How about homeopathy proponents?

How about climate change?

Because this is a science site, we're going to discuss it when a taxpayer-funded agency is found to be squandering valuable dollars on junk and waste that instead could he used to fund actual transformative research.  Unlike the rest of the science blogging on the Internet, we (okay, I - virtually no one here agrees with me) don't circle the wagons around every project just because it claims to be science and instead want money to be used efficiently and for maximum impact. 

Budgets are finite.  If science funding is wasted, good science projects won't get money from some additional magical pool, they won't get funding at all - and that is a shame.