In your "Real Clear Politics" example two perspectives are given equal weighting in their representation. This seems to make an assumption that there are exactly two valid perspectives and that they can be easily balanced.

Can't that system be exploited by extremists? If an extremely left-wing organization publishes a story that is nearly fabricated in its bias does a right-wing organization need to publish an equally flawed piece on the other side? Should people even read the stories?

I think it's accepted that there is bias in reporting. I also think it is a trap to believe "middle" == "balanced" == "fair" because extremists can exploit that perspective by making increasingly extreme statements. This is the basis of much of cable news as I understand it and I believe it oversimplifies the issues and creates echo chambers by rewarding the biggest delta in opinion.

In my opinion it is more important to get diverse news sources than it is to try and balance ideologies, especially when those ideologies are defined by someone else.