Standards of evidence

Conservative voices in today's media environment assume that they deserve a double standard in evidence:

• If it's possible that what conservatives claim is true, however likely to be false, the media are entitled, even obligated, to treat it as true.
• If it's possible that what liberals claim is false, however likely to be true, the media are entitled, even obligated to treat it as false.

The media could make an even-handed attempt to discern falsehoods and say so, but they don't. They've been infected by he-said-she-said-knowing-shrug - the Time Magazine approach to journalism that put me off ever reading it again in the 1970s, fer chrissake.

This double standard replicates one enforced in commercial speech. A corporation may make an ad that claims all sorts of nonsense, and it's not false advertising unless there's definitive proof that the ad is a knowing lie. They can ruthlessly cherry-pick data - "three quarters of surveys show Ford is better", but maybe they discarded a dozen other surveys that didn't fit. This is the conservative "truth".

Yet another corporation that wants to criticize another company's product must have definitive proof. This is what conservatives expect of liberals and, since the media accept the double standard as part of the game, what the media expect, too.

Update: Just when I need an example, I find a pointer from Atrios to this Media Matters piece.