3. Conservative Media Watch Organizations Alleging "Liberal Bias"
Fortunately, their OWN record on accuracy competes with the best works of fiction 

3.2 "Media Research Center (MRC)"

MRC's distinction is probably that they make AIM look honest; certainly, MRC would be in the running in a competition on pathological fakery. Terry Krepel at ConWebWatch has provided a brief backgrounder on L. Brent Bozell III who founded MRC.

Before we read more about MRC, here is something you should know - that Brock has noted (page 98):

[Bozell, in his lecture to the Heritage Foundation in 1992] made the astonishing claim that the MRC instigated the vast majority of stories about "liberal media bias" in the press. "Indeed, I will go so far as to warrant that 90 percent of the stories in both the electronic and print media which deal with the political bias in the industry have their origins in the Media Research Center," he said.

Let's start with a sample of MRC's work which was mentioned by Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler:

A FISHER OF RUBES: How big a fraud is Bernie Goldberg? Let’s return to that puzzling “quotation” from his new book, Arrogance—the quote we discussed in yesterday’s HOWLER (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/18/03). In his chapter about the New York Times, Bernie Goldberg thunders and rails about liberal demon Howell Raines:

GOLDBERG (page 66): A lot of people—and not just conservatives—think [the Times] hit rock bottom in 2001, when Howell Raines took over as executive editor…

Raines was famously quoted as saying that “the Reagan years oppressed me.” He has also declared that Reagan, a man beloved by millions of his countrymen, “couldn’t tie his shoelaces if his life depended on it.”

In contrast, there was his view of Bill Clinton: “Huge political talent,” declared Raines when Charlie Rose asked how he thought history would regard Clinton.

Raines loved Clinton, and just hated Reagan: It’s a message the talk-show right loves to hear. And Bernie had the perfect quote—a quote that could make readers feel like real victims! Ronald Reagan was loved by millions—but Raines rudely said he couldn’t tie his own shoes! Pseudo-con readers could cry all day long when they read the rude thing Raines had said.

But was the “quotation” actually accurate? Did Raines say that Ronald Reagan “couldn’t tie his shoelaces if his life depended on it?” In yesterday’s HOWLER, we voiced our suspicions about the oddly truncated quote. From Google searches, we knew that Goldberg had taken the quote from the archives of the Media Research Center. And as we noted, the MRC is pathologically dishonest; the influential org holds every world record for pulling “quotations” out of any sane context. We could find no record of the full quote, but we did notice something which made us suspicious. We knew the quote came from Raines’ book, Fly Fishing Through the Midlife Crisis. And, since reviews had said that the book dealt in part with the way different presidents fished and tied flies, we couldn’t help wondering if the truncated quote had to do with Reagan’s skill on a stream. We knew, all too well, how the MRC works. We couldn’t help wondering if the truncated quote might concern the way Reagan tied flies!

And sure enough! Let’s face it, readers—if there’s a way to commit fraud with a “quote,” the MRC will find it. Readers sent us to amazon.com, where you can now search a book’s contents. We called up Fly Fishing, and sure enough! The “shoelaces” quote is on page 84. And yes, it deals with Reagan’s fishing—and it isn’t even Raines who is speaking!

Who actually makes the disturbing statement? Raines is out in the boonies with the late Dick Blalock, a legendary Maryland fishing guide. Blalock has Raines on a fast-running stream—and he talks about fisherman presidents:

RAINES (pages 83-84): Even here in northern Maryland, we were still below the Mason-Dixon line and technically still in the South. More to the point, we were in hillbilly territory. In the nineteenth century, these people tended whiskey stills…Now their descendants still lived back in the hollows of the Catoctins, experienced poachers of deer and turkey and of the fat trout in the fly-fishing-only section of Hunting Creek. In short, Dick Blalock had brought me to one of the northernmost outposts of the Redneck Way.

“See that pool?” said Dick. “That was Jimmy Carter’s favorite pool when he was President. We’re only about a mile from Camp David. The Fish and Wildlife boys kept the stream lousy with big brood fish from the hatcheries when he was up here. I knew a guy who used to slip in and give every big trout in the stream a sore lip whenever he heard Carter was coming. Of course, I liked Carter. Charlie Fox and Ben Schley taught him a lot about fishing, and he ties a good fly. Reagan couldn’t tie his shoelaces if his life depended on it.”

Amazing, isn’t it? But typical of the way Bernie Goldberg does business. In short, it was Blalock who made the statement, not Raines, as Bernie blusters to her misused, misled readers. And what was Blalock plainly saying? That Reagan didn’t know how to tie flies! That’s the actual context of the “quote” which the MRC has been flogging for years. And it’s flogged again in Bernie’s fake book, finally reaching a national audience. Bernie Goldberg is a fisher of rubes. And he’s reeling them in with this fakery.

Of course, this isn’t the first time that Goldberg has cadged a phony “quote” from the MRC. How big a fake is Bernie Goldberg? In Bias, he slandered Times writer Natalie Angier with a similar MRC cut-and-paste job. Years earlier, Angier—a science writer—had written a piece about insect reproduction. And the MRC had swung into action; they clipped a quote and made it sound like Angier had written a piece bashing men! (See THE DAILY HOWLER, 1/12/02. Prepare to emit mordant chuckles.) Bernie, of course, just cut-and-pasted—and ranted. The rough little man clipped the ludicrous “quote” and ranted and railed for the readers of Bias. Now, he cuts and pastes from an old fishing tale, and says that Raines trashed Ronald Reagan.

Somerby also posted an update showing the extent to which Bozell and the MRC are willing to fake their claims:

QUITE A STRETCH: Let’s have E-Mailer Joe explain it! Just how great is the MRC’s clowning? Here’s the message our e-mailer sent—after he explored the origins of that Howell Raines “shoelaces” quote:

E-MAILER JOE (11/19/03): One more note on the “shoelaces” quote that Goldberg lifts from the MRC.

The Howler from today notes: “As we noted, the MRC is pathologically dishonest; the influential org holds every world record for pulling ‘quotations’ out of any sane context.” Luckily, the magic of the Internet gives us the tools to put that thesis to the test.

The earliest cite of the shoelaces quote delivered by the MRC’s own search engine comes from May 5, 1994. In its long-running “Notable Quotables” feature, the MRC shows us Howell Raines’ unspeakable bias:

“Then one day in the summer of 1981 I found myself at the L.L. Bean store in Freeport, Maine. I was a correspondent in the White House in those days, and my work—which consisted of reporting on President Reagan’s success in making life harder for citizens who were not born rich, white, and healthy—saddened me…My parents raised me to admire generosity and to feel pity. I had arrived in our nation’s capital [in 1981] during a historic ascendancy of greed and hard-heartedness…Reagan couldn’t tie his shoelaces if his life depended on it.” —New York Times editorial page editor (and former Washington Bureau Chief) Howell Raines in his book Fly Fishing Through the Midlife Crisis.

However, having read my Howler regularly and taken its lessons to heart, I questioned that last ellipsis. The logic of the passage doesn’t seem to flow very well from “a historic ascendancy of greed and hard-heartedness” to “Reagan couldn’t tie his shoelaces.” So what’s missing in between? Nothing much—just 28 pages of text! The portion of the “quote” before the ellipsis occurs on page 56 of Raines’ book. The “shoelaces” reference appears on page 84. What do the journalistic stylebooks say about this rather loose abuse of three little dots?

What do the stylebooks say? Here at THE HOWLER, we don’t really know. Most likely, writers of those journalistic stylebooks never dreamed of such total fakery—never dreamed that they’d have to confront such startling attempts at deception. At any rate, E-Mailer Joe is far too kind when he refers to this “rather loose abuse.” This “quote” which the MRC stitched together is typical of that org’s endless clowning. As we’ve seen, the “shoelaces” quote (from page 84) concerned Reagan’s fishing, and it wasn’t even spoken by Raines. But Brent Bozell didn’t want you to know that. So he and his gang—well, they made quite a stretch! Their ellipsis stretched across 28 pages—and it showed their contempt for your discourse.

[According to Somerby, the MRC then posted something saying it “regrets the confusion” about that “shoelaces” quote."]

Let's look another example that Somerby provides to see the fakery peddled daily by MRC. 

On November 15, Goldberg appeared for the full hour on Tim Russert’s CNBC program, Russert. Soon, the irate press-watcher was waxing indignant about—yes—a New York Times food review! “The New York Times shoves ideology down your throat every place in the paper,” he fumed. Then he went where the quiche hits the pan:

GOLDBERG: This is a piece about food in the Sunday New York Times Magazine, Sunday New York Times Magazine about food, about monkfish, to be precise. You’re not going to believe it. As Yogi used to say, You can look it up.

[Quoting the New York Times] “Apparently the monkfish sits on the bottom of the ocean, opens its godzilla jaws and waits for poor, unsuspecting fishies to swim right into it, not unlike the latest recipients of George Bush’s capital gains cuts.” Tim, you can’t make this up.

In fact, you can make this stuff up, as Bernie has proven again and again (for example, with that “shoelaces” quote, his previous clowning fish story). At any rate, Russert—hit with a novel complaint—tried to divine the facts about the troubling “monkfish” remark. “Is that written in a humor column?” he asked. And Bernie got all hot again:

GOLDBERG: No. No, this is in a piece about, about eating seafood in Norway! How does that get through? I mean, if the writer wants to be goofy enough to write something like that, that’s one thing. But the editors at the New York Times let a piece about monkfish include ideology about the president’s capital gains tax cuts? This is the problem. And journalists need to stop following the leader and start thinking more for themselves.

Russert let Bernie have the last word on monkfish. From there, he began a new topic.

“Journalists need to start thinking more for themselves?” If only Bernie would follow that dictum! As usual, he had cadged his quote from the Media Research Center, which swung into action when the “monkfish” quote appeared in the Times on July 27, 2003. Three days later, the MRC issued a “CyberAlert” about the troubling “monkfish” remark (click here, then search on “monkfish”). Two weeks after that, there was Bernie, venting on national TV.

Bernie, of course, was all wet, as always. In fact, the “monkfish” remark had been written by Jonathan Reynolds, a comic playwright turned food critic who tends to pepper his New York Times columns with various corny jokes. And Reynolds is an equal opportunity jokester. On March 4, 2001, for example, he pepped up a column called “Fear of Frying” with a zinger aimed right at Bill Clinton:

REYNOLDS (3/4/01): First, don’t bother with commercial or domestic frying pans. The best equipment is a large cast-iron pot or a Dutch oven that holds between four and eight quarts. Cast iron retains heat at a constant temperature, unlike the flightier aluminum and stainless, and it will last almost as long as Billy Jeff Clinton will keep fooling Hollywood's billionaires—which is to say, forever.

Earlier that year, in a column written in the form of a screenplay, he aimed a jibe at a fellow named Gore:

REYNOLDS (2/18/01):
PILOT: A fillet is $12.95 at Game Sales International or a billion dollars a pound at Balducci’s. Have you had a triple or quadruple bypass yet?

THOM: Uh . . . no.

DR. WEIL: No matter. It’s still a healthy meat substitute. Eat all you want!

[Dr. Weil turns away. Thom clutches his unopened postal box, looks out the window.]

EXT. ISLAND—THOM’S P.O.V.

The helicopter crosses the island. Three humans run under it. As we look closer, we can make out Alec Baldwin, Robert Altman and Barbra Streisand, all wearing big alberto gore buttons.

THOM: (Yelling) Can I give you a lift?

ALEC: No, we’re here till 2004!

And yes, that is the tone of his columns. That same year, in a column called “L. A. Confidential,” he explained where to find hot tamales:

REYNOLDS (5/6/01): You just need to motor to the west side of town, knock on the door of a show-biz quadrillionaire or out-in-time Nasdaqer and ask if she or he has any female undocumented workers—a euphemism for “illegal aliens”—on staff, the harboring of whom gave the 42nd and 43rd presidents of the United States supposedly just reason for withdrawing support from the cabinet nominations of Zoe Baird and Linda Chavez. If the quadrillionaire employs someone illegal, and I’ve yet to find one who doesn’t, your chances of getting a brilliant tamale are substantially increased.

In that one, Reynolds got both Clinton and Bush (42 and 43)! So yes, Tim—the monkfish quote you were asked to discuss did appear in a humor column. As usual, Bernie cadged a quote from the pathologically fake MRC, then went on TV and blustered. As usual, he didn’t have the slightest idea what he was actually talking about. He knew one thing—his scripted spin. So he went on TV and he spun it.

Amazing, isn’t it—the amount of buffoonery this clowning clown is allowed to spread through your public discourse? In a sane world, you’d almost think that a man like Russert would avoid having clowning clowns on his program. But the Washington press corps is no longer sane—and the Washington press corps bows low to power. Goldberg may be a clowning clown, but he’s a clowning clown of the powerful right. Yes, Russert knows what a fool Bernie is. But on Monday, we’ll finish our “Days of Bernie” by letting you watch Russert pander.

JONATHAN REYNOLDS, CONSERVATIVE PLAYWRIGHT: Bernie just knew what he was seeing—he was seeing the Times’ liberal bias in action! The Times “let a piece about monkfish include ideology about the president’s capital gains tax cuts,” he thundered. Even Bernie could barely believe it! “This is the problem,” he exclaimed.

But what is Jonathan Reynold’s political slant? Sorry, Bernie—Reynolds seems to be generally conservative. Back in 1998, Frank Rich quoted the joking jokester about the danger of including politics in theatrical shows:

RICH: “Producers are afraid of controversy whether from the left or the right,” says the screenwriter and playwright Jonathan Reynolds, whose conservative-minded satire about white liberals and race, “Stonewall Jackson’s House,” received rave reviews Off Broadway but has not been produced in a single major city in the 16 months since.

Say what? Reynolds’ show was conservative-minded? In fact, one of Reynolds’ “rave reviews” had come from the demonically liberal New York Times. How conservative-minded is Reynolds? Peter Marks had described his production:

MARKS (2/19/97): The gloves come off early in “Stonewall Jackson’s House,” Jonathan Reynolds’s caustic comic tirade against political orthodoxy...Mr. Reynolds climbs on his soapbox at the American Place Theater for a rambling, funny, cranky and highly entertaining diatribe against all the agenda-laden forces and high-minded programs (especially of the liberal stripe) that he believes have conspired to wring common sense out of American political and cultural life.

Affirmative action, political correctness, nontraditional casting, the welfare state, black studies, ethnocentrism, multiculturalism: Mr. Reynolds pushes so many buttons he could have staged the play in an elevator.

More here. This link to ConWebWatch archives provides a list of posts at ConWebWatch relating to MRC, many of which show examples of MRC passing off so-called "facts" that unsurprisingly turn out to be non-facts or misleading statements.  

One more of Bozell's/MRC's myriad hits:

PTC Retraction to WWE And the Public

Posted 7/11/2002

Media Research Center (MRC), Parents Television Council (PTC), Dr. Delores Tucker, Mark Honig and I have in the past made statements regarding so-called wrestling deaths—children killed by other children alleged to be mimicking “professional wrestling” moves they saw on television. We made such statements to members of MRC and PTC, the media, advertisers on World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) Smackdown! program, retailers that sell WWE-related toys and merchandise, public officials and the public. MRC and PTC also produced a videotape as part of a fundraising campaign in connection with its “National Campaign to Clean Up TV Now!”, which advanced the notion that the murder of Tiffany Eunick was caused by the influence of professional wrestling on Lionel Tate. The videotape included interviews with Lionel Tate’s lawyer advancing the notion that the murder of Tiffany Eunick, the victim, was directly caused by the impact that professional wrestling had on Lionel Tate.

We based our statements on media reports and source information. We now believe, based on extensive investigation and facts which have come to light since making those statements, that it was wrong for MRC, PTC, their spokespersons and myself to have said anything that could be construed as blaming WWE or any of its programs for the deaths of the children. Simply put, it was premature to reach that conclusion when we did, and there is now ample evidence to show that conclusion was incorrect. I now believe that professional wrestling played no role in the murder of Tiffany Eunick, which was a part of our “Clean Up TV Now!” campaign, and am equally convinced that it was incorrect and wrong to have blamed WWE or any of its programs for the deaths of the other children.

Because of our statements, PTC, MRC and the WWE have been in litigation since November 2000. WWE vigorously advanced its position that neither it, nor “professional wrestling” lead to these deaths. WWE also contended that MRC, PTC, their spokespersons and I had misrepresented the number of advertisers who withdrew support from WWE’s Smackdown! television program after receiving communications from the PTC, some of which regrettably connected the WWE and Smackdown! to the deaths of children. As such, WWE exercised its right to initiate this litigation, during which facts came to light that prompted me to make this statement.

By this retraction, I want to be clear that WWE was correct in pointing out that various statements made by MRC, PTC and me were inaccurate concerning the identity and number of WWE Smackdown! advertisers who withdrew support from the program. Many of the companies we stated had “withdrawn” or pulled their support had never, in fact, advertised on Smackdown! nor had any plan to advertise on Smackdown! Again, we regret this error and retract any such misleading statements.

Finally, concerning the statements about child wrestling deaths, it was wrong to have stated or implied that WWE or any of its programs caused these tragic deaths.

...

Sincerely,

L. Brent Bozell, III

cc: Vince and Linda McMahon

Mark Weber covered the extreme shoddiness of MRC's "research" in this article on Democratic Underground:

MRC's latest study is draped in this pretense of scholarship. "Burying the Liberal Label on Network News" (released last week) revels in its methodological soundness; apparently, we are supposed to be impressed by the academic tone of the study. Right-wing pundits will undoubtedly quote it ad nauseum over the next several months.

On closer inspection, however, this report does nothing more than expose MRC's talent for partisan sophistry and sloppy research.

At the beginning of "Burying the Liberal Label," MRC juxtaposes their past work against a study by Stanford linguist Geoffrey Nunberg. Nunberg was compelled to take a look at the media after reading Bernard Goldberg's "Bias," a book MRC lauds for its exposure of liberal tendencies in network television news.

Nunberg compared the total number of times that a politician's name was used in several different newspapers to the number of times it was used near the label "conservative" or "liberal" (he admits that it was easier for him to check newspapers than network broadcasts, and that television may be different than newspapers, but probably not by much).

To his surprise, liberal politicians were much more likely to be labeled than conservatives. This, of course, flies in the face of every bit of "research" the MRC has conducted.

"Burying the Liberal Label" is essentially a rebuttal to Nunberg. But rather than follow his example and compare the number of times a politician is labeled to the number of times she is not, MRC instead decided to count up the total number of "liberal/conservative" labels on the three network evening newscasts.

The results? Big surprise - a "conservative" label is used much more often than a "liberal" label: 992 to 247. Numerical proof that here must be Liberal Media Bias. Q.E.D. So there.

By this logic, if Brent Bozell bought a new fishing pole, took it down to the lake, and caught three bass and one sunny, he would say that the pole was three times more biased toward catching bass. It wouldn¹t occur to him that maybe there were more bass in the lake.

A much more plausible explanation for the greater use of the "conservative" label would be that conservatives get a lot more airtime on the networks than liberals do. In fact, Nunberg's study suggests just this: his five liberal politicians got considerably fewer mentions, even in "liberal" newspapers, than his five conservatives did.

Is this proof of Conservative Media Bias? Of course not; it only shows that the numbers game MRC plays is rigged to give them the results that they and their funders want.

But even if we accept MRC's goofy premise, this study fails on its own terms. The MRC's methodology has holes large enough to drive a newsvan through.

To massage the data for "Burying the Liberal Label," MRC winnowed down the number of uses to only those it deemed relevant to the study. Most of the "methodology" involved selecting which labels should stay or go.

For example, MRC eliminated all uses of the labels that are not "Swithin the U.S. political context." Time out ­ why do all of those get eliminated? I can understand removing a description of "a deeply conservative Islamist," but what about a label of, say, Tony Blair as a "liberal"? There are plenty of Western world leaders whose labeling should be relevant to this study.

Next, the study removed all uses of labels by "news sources." If, for example, a reporter repeats that a Republican calls a Democrat a "liberal," that doesn¹t count.

But why not? The reporter is using editorial license to make her point. If she uses the quote, and then calls the Republican a "conservative," she gets dinged for using a conservative label but not for using a liberal one. She wouldn¹t repeat the label for the Democrat ­ it's already been used. Why doesn¹t MRC believe that editorial bias is relevant?

It gets sloppier. MRC also doesn¹t count sound bites, where a politician can label himself or someone else. So a network can choose to run a string of clips with Republicans calling Democrats "tax-and-spend liberals," and not get dinged, but if they describe Bush as a "compassionate conservative," they¹re showing bias.

All of this methodological madness, however, is not nearly as bad as the premise on which the study is based. The use of the word "conservative" more often than the word "liberal" in no way betrays Liberal Media Bias.

During the five years of the study, conservatives dominated the Congress and won (sorry, stole) a presidential election. Conservatives have increasingly commanded the political debate in this country. Republicans proudly identify themselves as "conservatives"; Democrats shy away from being labeled "liberals." All of these factors contribute to the increased use of the "conservative" label in newscasts.

In fact, the overwhelming use of the word "conservative" on the nightly news suggests quite the opposite of Liberal Media Bias. Conservatives are setting the agenda and getting the lion's share of the face-time. Liberals have been pushed off to the side, unable to make their case to the public. The right has taken over the mainstream.

Another post at ConWebWatch:

And in a separate letter, Bozell claims: "We don’t want a 'conservative' news media. We want, and demand, truth. We want the news media to strive for objectivity at all times. We want balance. We want fairness."

Uh, no you don't, Brent.

The MRC has never been interested in "truth." It wants "truth" only when it benefits conservatives and hurts liberals. What the MRC really wants is spin -- conservative spin.

One place the MRC could start is its treatment of Bill Clinton, in the news again with his new autobiography and the documentary "The Hunting of the President." In a June 21 CyberAlert, Brent Baker complains that Margaret Carlson "used the release of Bill Clinton’s book as an opportunity to denounce Ken Starr" and his abuses as independent counsel on CNN's "Capital Gang." Baker should admit that there's more than ample evidence that such prosecutorial abuse occurred.

The MRC also devoted not one, but two June 21 "Media Reality Checks" to continuing its Clinton assault, the first attacking CBS' Dan Rather, interviewer of Clinton for "60 Minutes," "a soft touch, a powder puff, an apple polisher, a lapdog," and the second calling Rather gullible for not challenging Clinton's alleged "whoppers" during a "60 Minutes" interview. Among the alleged lies: "... are we to believe that in the White House, with many bedrooms, the President had to sleep on a couch?" The MRC wasn't there so it has no idea, just its continuing desire to report only the worst about people it opposes.

There are other instances of MRC's lack of truth-telling that ConWebWatch has documented over the years:

• Reporting on political donations made by journalists to Democrats while downplaying similar donations made to Republicans.

• Insisting any reference to George W. Bush's spotty National Guard service as "AWOL" was "inaccurate" and "unproven," while uncritically accepting of the description of Bill Clinton as a "draft-dodger."

• Claiming that because the broadcast TV networks reported certain things about "partial-birth abortion," they had an agenda, while not admitting the logical conclusion that because Fox News Channel didn't report those things, they have an agenda too. The MRC overall turns a blind eye to bias at Fox News.

• Urging MRC readers who are "sensitive to derogatory comments about Limbaugh" to avoid a David Letterman Top 10 list it reproduced. No similar warnings have been issued regarding, say, Clinton-bashing Top 10 lists; in fact, Clinton sex jokes tickle the heck out of the MRC.

• Not being able to prove David Brock was lying in his book "Blinded By the Right," but calling him one anyway.

And if the MRC genuinely cared about "the truth," its "news" division, CNSNews.com, would actually be known for following its mandate to "fairly present all legitimate sides of a story" instead of being the conservative-slanted news source we're all familiar with, as evidenced by, among other things, the inability to be completely truthful about Otto Reich and its failure to speak the name of James Kopp, the admitted killer of an abortion doctor, in an original CNS story until months after his admission of guilt, and only then in a reproduction of a statement by an anti-abortion group disavowing his tactics.

So Brent Bozell and the MRC wants objectivity, balance and fairness -- and truth? How about first showing that it knows what all that means, then demonstrating it in its own work?

Also see this link.

Bozell's and his team's inclination to commit fraud on unsuspecting readers has also been covered of late by Media Matters. Here is an example. Here's another:

As Media Matters for America noted this week:

Several conservative pundits have touted the influence of anti-Kerry group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (now officially called Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth) on the outcome of the November 2 presidential election. Media Matters for America voluminously documented the group's false and discredited allegations against Senator John Kerry and the intense media coverage the group received, especially in August 2004 following the Democratic National Convention.

[...]

These triumphal pronouncements contrast sharply with complaints during the election by L. Brent Bozell III, founder and president of the conservative Media Research Center. Bozell complained that the news media was ignoring Swift Boat Vets, as MMFA documented here and here.

FOX News Channel managing editor and chief Washington correspondent Brit Hume was among those who touted the group's impact following the election. In September, however, Hume expressed dismay to Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz about the lack of media attention paid to the group and explained why FOX News' Special Report with Brit Hume had devoted so much time to the group's false allegations against Kerry: "We thought it was a totally legitimate story and found it an appalling lapse by many of our competitive news organizations that were treating that story like it was cancerous."

The very fact that Brent Bozell (or for that matter Fox News) considered the Swift Boat Veterans to be credible shows that these folks have NEGATIVE credibility. The Swift Boat Veterans' myriad claims have been shown to be thoroughly false and slanderous. They were an out-and-out fraud operation. Bozell's and Hume's pimping this group is all one needs to know that they and their outfits (MRC and Fox News) are among the worst in the country. 

Brian Montopoli of CJR Daily has a post as well:

But false equivalence is at the very root of MRC's beliefs. Have a look at this passage, which comes from How to Identify, Expose & Correct Liberal Media Bias, by Media Research Center's Brent H. Baker:

To find bias by use of experts or sources, stay alert to the affiliations and political perspective of those quoted as experts or authorities in news stories. Not all stories will include experts, but in those that do, make sure about an equal number of conservatives and liberals are quoted. If a story quotes non-experts, such as those portrayed as average citizens, check to be sure that about an equal number come from both sides of the issue in question. Also check to see if a reporter's generalization about how 'economists across the political spectrum' or 'most health care specialists' is supported by subsequently cited experts. If they are all or overwhelmingly from one side of the political spectrum, then you've come across bias by use of sources.

One can understand the impulse behind this advice. But to apply it to every story is absurd. Consider a hypothetical report on global warming. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community believes that global warming is happening and that human activity is contributing to it, but there is a small group on the right that consider it an unfounded myth. To give equal time to the vast majority and the tiny minority makes no sense -- and yet that's precisely what a reporter should do, if Baker is to be believed.

A recent incident concerning C-SPAN illustrated to what absurd lengths the quest for equivalence at all costs can lead. The network announced that it would balance its coverage of a lecture by a professor of Holocaust studies named Deborah E. Lipstadt with a speech by David Irving -- who sued Lipstadt for calling him a Holocaust denier. A British court found for Lipstadt, finding that Irving was anti-Semitic, racist, and given to misrepresenting and misinterpreting historical evidence. "Falsifiers of history cannot 'balance' histories," said a petition sent to C-SPAN that was signed by more than 200 historians. "Falsehoods cannot 'balance' the truth."

There is important work to be done to combat instances of bias in the press. But it's not being done at MRC. Unless the folks at Bozell's organization decide that fixing the press is more important than undermining it, their critiques will continue to be met as so much rhetorical posturing.

That's not good for the health of the press, and, in the long run, not so good for conservatives, either.

I have covered other examples of how MRC misleads the public in Sec. 2.11A, the Annex to Sec. 4.1, and here.

Peter Hart and Steve Rendall of FAIR have a brief note about MRC as well:

Media Research Center

The Media Research Center is headed by L. Brent Bozell III, the former director of the National Conservative Political Action Committee. In 1992, he took a brief time-out from the MRC to serve as finance chair for Patrick Buchanan's primary challenge to George Bush.

Bozell's 1990 book, And That's the Way It Isn't, co-edited with Brent Baker, offers numerous examples of the caliber of research conducted or endorsed by the MRC. One study, "Selective Eye on Central America," criticized media for giving more coverage in 1984 to government death squads in El Salvador than to government death squads in Nicaragua--a bit like complaining that the basketball talents of Michael Jordan get more coverage than those of Woody Allen. (Amnesty International's 1985 annual report noted that, in El Salvador, "many of the estimated 40,000 people killed in political violence [from 1979 to 1984] had been murdered by government forces who openly dumped mutilated corpses in an apparent attempt to terrorize the public"; in Nicaragua, while there were some instances of arbitrary killings by government forces, "most such reported abuses led to the public trial and conviction of military personnel found responsible.")

The same book includes a feature titled "The Revolving Door," which purports to track "the movement of people between political and media positions." The sample group appears to be anyone the MRC could think of, and the thinking appears to be selective: Mona Charen, for example, is nowhere to be found--though if you turn the book over, you find her blurbing the book, identified as a "syndicated columnist and former speechwriter for President Reagan."
...