Welcome to a birthday marathon of "Doggerel," where I ramble on about words and phrases that are misused, abused, or just plain meaningless.
One thing that the media loves is "controversy." It gives them an excuse to put up ratings-friendly loud arguments on TV, and it's something they can continue to draw out. After all, if there's still disagreement, there must be controversy, right?
Wrong. Controversy is not the simple existence of dissenters. If that were the case, one wonders why the media doesn't routinely cover both sides of the controversy of the Earth's shape. For any well-established theory, there will always be denialists if you look hard enough.
Real scientific controversy only exists if two or more opposing hypotheses have roughly equal evidence, posit few, if any, new entities, and so forth. I think we can safely say that a lot of these types of things are ignored by the mainstream media, and more likely occur in peer-reviewed journals. The kind of "controversy" woos do is done in public relations, and usually in a one-sided manner giving next to no time for skeptics.
What's really annoying is that the level of "controversy" is decided by the intensity of the emotions involved, rather than the actual content of the arguments. Usually, this means that if the truth makes people angry, it must be the wrong side. Unless you're a skeptic, in which case, making you angry "proves" that you're wrong.