No you wouldn't. This is a common misconception. The law allowed for the reporting of facts without having to have a wacko on there denying them. Every time a journalist mentioned gravity, they didn't have to have someone come on and say that gravity didn't exist. They weren't constantly having to have people come on claiming that heliocentrism was false with every morning show.

So you do a segment that says "here's a scientist with noting to gain from deceiving you and, by legally required contrast, a climate change denying corporate shill whose profit motive in lying to you is jarringly obvious."

Why would you do this when you yourself work for a massive corporation with vested interest in pretending it's not real?