Does this seem fair?

I was watching the coverage of a court decision on autism and vaccines this morning. It seemed a little biased to me. The family's side was nearly five minutes (if you don't count the background information); the doctor's was two. Of course there are time constraints in newscasts, but that seemed a little too unbalanced. Furthermore, he continuously asked the family what it meant to them, but didn't ask their lawyer to explain their evidence. The doctor, however, had to justify the medical community's hesitation to totally condemn vaccines. Maybe I'm overreacting, but it seemed to me that an uneducated viewer is going to come away from that with the impression that it's been proven that vaccines are bad. Is that really helping anyone?