Instapundit links to some very interesting numbers about media double-standards from Michael Silence. Even after corrected in the comments, they are still pretty revealing. And people add in some evidence of their own. In the same post, Reynolds points out that Biden's son and brother are being sued for fraud by a former business partner. Do you know that? Huh.
All standard stuff. We could multiply examples for hours - and over here on the right blogosphere we do, actually. It is insane that Rezko is on trial and that's not a front page story every day. I don't mean always the banner headline, but some sort of progress report below the fold every day, with talking heads opining on how Barack can distance himself from this, or whether it hurts him, and whether others close to him will be implicated. If such a thing were taking place in another country - if during the elections in France a close relative or associate of Sarkozy, or Chirac, or de Villepin, or Le Pen were on trial, and the newspapers weren't covering 24/7 it we would be appalled at how much they were in the tank, and that the French people put up with such things.
So it's crazy. The world is always crazy. I would like to look at this a different way.
There is a problem-solving technique I was taught years ago called 10x/.1x. Take any problem you are having difficulty with and imagine that it is 10 times worse. If you have a $50,000 mortgage and business is bad, imagine what the problem would look like if you had a $500,000 mortgage and no job at all. This is not just to feel better about your current problem, but to open up ideas of what your real choices are. Problems that are ten times worse often require solutions that are qualitatively different. You can't just try a little harder or move some seat cushions around.
After you have really thought through (and timed how long it took you) the 10x problem - after you have decided what you would do if your wife was not merely inattentive but actively hated you, or if your back pain was not just annoying but disabling - you move on to the other half of the exercise. What if your problem were only one-tenth as bad?
The second half of the exercise is just as important and the first, sometimes more so. One's initial temptation is to just stop the exercise and say "I'd just shrug it off. No big deal." If a problem has just now risen to the level or requiring some creative thought, after all, it's a pretty good indication that it was quite endurable until yesterday. But the lesson requires that you actually attack the second question, and spend as much time as you did on the first one. It is quite difficult at first, because the temptation to simply ignore the one-tenth problem keeps re-emerging.
So, let's play the media bias problem-solving game. What if it really were ten times worse - if Daily Kos owned the New York Times, not just in terms of owning the building and presses, but commanding that prestige in our society? What if ABC really was like Pravda, not just in our hyperbolic accusations, but in reality? What would libertarians and conservatives do? In one sense, we are already doing it, creating an alternative media on the radio and the internet. But play it out farther in your mind over the next twenty-four hours. What would we do?
Do not start the second exercise yet. Let's discuss the first part.