Many news sources (TV, Magazines, Internet), not many moons ago, were incredibly biased with their presentation of The Jesus Seminar. Personally, I doubt I would write the editor nor the producers of these shows. I believe an editor of a scholarly magazine should realize the type of logic and argument he is creating, a biased one. There are some things to bear in mind as we interpret the media's spin on such issues.
First, anytime he is writing he is setting the tenor or opinion of many people. Realizing this, he would or should realize that his information share be balanced and accountable. To cite a con or a pro, only, in a pro or con argument is not intellectually honest.
Second, if any doubt remained as to a need of revision, I would tell the editor that the “Jesus Seminar has made no secret about its contention that the orthodox conception of Jesus is outdated and ought to be rejected” and therefore any representation from them is completely preconceived in that notion. Such an attempt at criteria setting is not even acceptable in a courtroom wherein there is a prosecutor and a defendant. Ironically, it seems that Christ is on trial, once again a few thousand years later, and once again the outcome is decided by some. Truth will triumph.
Habermas, G. R., & Habermas, G. R. (1996). The historical Jesus : Ancient evidence for the life of Christ. Rev. ed. of: Ancient evidence for the life of Jesus. (138). Joplin, Mo.: College Press Pub. Co.