A bit of background: In chapter 12 of his best-seller, Bias, Bernie Goldberg presents a list of "Notable Quotables" from the Media Research Center. (The MRC is Brent Bozell’s conservative press watchdog group.) Goldberg’s first listing is an iconic quote from Peter Jennings, attributed to "his radio commentary after the GOP won the House, November 14, 1994." Here’s the quote as Goldberg presents it:

Ellipses and all, this is the way the quote appears in Bias. As presented, it sounds like Jennings compared GOP voters in the 1994 congressional election to angry two-year-old children.

But has the quote been edited fairly? Because the statement came from a radio commentary that isn’t preserved by LEXIS, we haven’t been able to track down the full Jennings transcript. And how easy is it to yell "liberal bias" in ways that are baldly misleading? It’s very, very easy. Indeed, consider the "Notable Quotable" which appeared right below the Jennings quote on the 1994 MRC list:

Word-for-word, that is the quote, exactly as it still appears in the archives of the MRC site.

But how easy is it to yell "liberal bias?" It’s amazingly easy to yell "liberal bias"—if you’re willing to mislead your readers. Klein’s quote came from a Newsweek piece which can, of course, be examined in full. Prepare to see how far the MRC went in order to yell "liberal bias."

How much "liberal bias" did Klein display? The headline on the piece was "AN AWFUL YEAR." Sub-headline? "Both parties have run dismal, ultra-retro campaigns." That’s right, kids. Klein was so full of liberal bias that he trashed "both parties" in his piece. For the record, Klein’s article was dated 11/14, but it appeared on November 7, the day before the historic election in which the GOP regained control of the House. When he wrote his Newsweek piece, Klein had no way of knowing how the election would turn out.

Klein began with an overview of Election 94. "A truly awful election year," he wrote. "Dismal, depressing and despicable. Especially after 1992, which was pretty good (as these things go). Serious ideas were discussed in 1992…The public was involved, concerned and hopeful. Not this time. The public has seemed more intolerant than involved, uninterested in what the candidates have had to say, blindly voting against." Though that may sound like a clipped quote, that’s how the first paragraph ended.

In paragraph two, Klein started slamming the pols. "Then again, the candidates haven’t had all that much to say," he began. "The most striking thing about this election has been the utter absence of new ideas. I can’t think of one." After noting the anti-government mood found in many surveys, Klein began to play his assigned role. He criticized the GOP:

If Klein had stopped his piece right there, the MRC might have had a slim point. There would be no sign of actual "bias," but at least they could have said that Klein had written a piece which slammed the GOP.

But Klein, of course, didn’t stop there. "But the Democrats haven’t been any better," he continued, showing off the startling "liberal bias" that made the MRC shed big crocodile ears. Indeed, get a load of the "liberal bias" Klein displayed in his very next sentence:

You could just see the "liberal bias" there! Indeed, after a few more jibes at Clinton’s performance, Klein went on to say this:

If you can see "liberal bias" in that passage, you’re as daft—or as phony—as the MRC. Indeed, who was ultimately at fault for the AWFUL YEAR? You guessed it, boys and girls! Bill Clinton:

We want to stop and remind you now—this is an article which the MRC hailed at the latest example of "liberal bias." The cattle came to graze at the MRC site, and went away, mooing and shuddering, at the way the "liberal media" had done it again. But what was the greatest complaint Klein expressed? His greatest complaint was with Bill Clinton, for presenting a lousy health care plan which Klein specifically derided as liberal! According to Klein, Clinton had devised "an old-fashioned, liberal, bureaucratic mess"—the very kind of liberal mess "that voters find implausible" today. (He had also let himself seem like "a lifestyle liberal.") "[M]ake no mistake," Klein said in closing, "the ugliness of this election year is a direct result of public anger at a president who lost touch and lost his way."

What can one say about an act of deception as vast as that by the MRC? After reading Klein’s piece, the MRC was weeping, boohooing and shedding big tears. It was also baldly deceiving its readers. A number of things surely must be said about a discourse conducted this way.

First, how much "liberal bias" can there actually be if the MRC has to make up such examples? Simply put, this was a case of outright fraud. One can only suppose that the MRC could find no real liberal bias.

But second, what can one say about a mainstream press corps which puts up with such gross deceptions? In this case, the MRC didn’t content itself with deceiving citizens who came to their site. The deceptive "quote" from the Joe Klein piece was also flogged by Bozell himself, in an 11/26/94 op-ed column in the Washington Times. ("The liberal national news media knows its agenda was soundly repudiated by the electorate," Bozell wrote. Bozell listed Klein’s misleading "quote" as Exhibit B, right after the Jennings quotation.) But have you ever heard the mainstream press complain about such ludicrous accusations of "liberal bias?" For the past decade, an aggressive, attack-dog conservative press has faced a complacent mainstream corps—a group too indifferent and craven to speak up in protest even when the public is grossly misled.

So what did Jennings really say? Here at THE HOWLER, we don’t have a clue. But yelling "liberal bias" is amazingly easy to do—if you’re willing to butcher a quote. Klein trashed Clinton up and down—and still was guilty of "liberal bias." The nonsense persists to this very day. Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, we ask you one question: Where are standards?

MRsee-ing things: Other quotes from the 1994 "Notable" list were puzzling as examples of liberal bias. Here, for example, was a post-election quote attributed to Tim Russert:

Why was Russert guilty of "liberal bias?" Because he said that the public only wanted the government to tilt "a bit right of center." Russert’s prediction, of course, turned out to be accurate, as judged by public reaction to the 1995 government shutdown. Of course, coverage of the government shutdown was all "liberal bias" too.

It all evens out in the end: We aren’t going to reveal the name of Andrew Sullivan’s "anonymous economist" from last Monday, but we couldn’t help chuckling when several talented sleuths brought her name and CV to THE DAILY HOWLER’S attention. As you may recall, Sullivan’s burqa’ed correspondent shook her head and tsk-tsked sadly about the way Paul Krugman had been all wet about dereg (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 2/27/02). Her complaints, of course, were so utterly vague that there was simply no way to confirm or deny them. It was just Sullivan’s latest cowardly attack on Krugman’s competence and character—no criticism of his correspondent intended.

Here’s the humor—Sully’s anonymous economist is a honcho at the Reason Public Policy Institute. You’d never learn that from Sullivan, of course—and you’d never learn that the RPPI is funded by every oil company currently found on the face of the earth. Of course, that doesn’t mean that Sully’s anonymous economist is wrong in her views, whatever they may be. But didn’t this whole thing get underway with Sully complaining that Krugman needed to be more open about a past funding matter? How big a clown is Andrew Sullivan? This big: He complains when Krugman fails to tell us every cent that he ever was paid. In rebuttal, he presents another economist—and doesn’t even disclose her name, let alone her own funding issues. We’ll say again to the invaluable Jonathan Chait—if you can believe that this utter nonsense is being carried on in good faith, you’re a far better man than we.

But we guess it all evens out in the end. Some press types seem to have no standards. But Sullivan neatly balances them off; he has standards, and indeed they’re all double.