Burden of Proof
So many in the media/political establishment are attorneys. Because of this, burdens of proof should be fundamental in their analysis. Unless you are paid to destroy all notions of proof and fair play:
Charges of bias require no substantiation whatsoever -- they merely have to be seconded enough times so that they become, ipso facto, truth-esque. And once they're truth-esque, they simply must be addressed, lest the credibility of the whole organization be questioned by a "great many" people, none of whom are acting out of bad faith, none of whom can be dismissed as cranks or ideologues. It's a bizarre state of affairs. The onus has left the accuser. Somewhere along the line, the burden of proof was lifted from them and dumped on the accused. So now our methods for evaluating bias are fairly similar to British libel laws: the plaintiff needn't prove that you're biased, but you still need to prove that you weren't. The very fact that such questions are being asked is more than reason enough to conduct a full and pointed investigation. Never mind that most who've participated in the discussion mock the premise: that so many are not asking such questions even further proves that such questions must be asked. If you think it's bias when someone else accuses bias, you're obviously biased.
