I'm not clear on your meaning here, PC.
Are you suggesting that there's a problem with "mainstream press" representation of the people you listed, or with their actual published results and views? It seems the former, based on your first sentence (above)... but it's not clear, given the last sentence, because the "mainstream press" doesn't publish science.
Do you think that the "mainstream press" does a better job representing the published results and views of the "main players" who self-describe as skeptics? E.g., Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Soon, McIntyre, McKitrick, Wegman et al.?
I do not agree with your characterizations of the publications you cite here. Science and Nature are in fact scientific journals - they solicit and/or accept serious scientific papers, subject those papers to peer review prior to publication, subsequently publish scientific comments related to those articles, etc. They do also publish content that's not peer-reviewed -- letters, editorial comments, etc. Undoubtedly, their editors have particular viewpoints - but are you suggesting that these journals are excluding serious papers that may challenge the established paradigms in the fields they cover? These journals have a strong incentive to want to publish truly ground-breaking work - and papers that drive paradigm-shift are about as ground-breaking as it gets. That said, of course, most papers that seriously challenge the established paradigm in a scientific field aren't ground-breaking - they're just wrong. But the exceptions to that are the most important papers out there, and I think the editors of Science and Nature would agree.
The other magazines you cited - Scientific American, Smithsonian, Discover are not journals, in my opinion, in the scientific meaning of that term. They are mass-audience magazines that write about science, but they don't much publish peer-reviewed materials themselves. They do clearly have editorial positions, and some of the stuff they publish would not, in my opinion, stand up to review and replication. Personally, I find that they've become less selective (less rigorous, if you will) in their selection of what they'll publish; it appears to me that issues of circulation numbers and keeping major advertisers in the fold are weighing on them. (Not surprising; they're mass-market print publications, which means that they're pretty much by definition facing economic challenges!)