In this political month, we should all keep in mind Mark Twain's aphorism: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics." And of course, its common corollary follows close behind: "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure." Both are good quotes to keep in mind in assessing media reports of political matters.

No one knows that better than journalist Robert Niles. Niles keeps a Web site functioning for those who are functionally innumerate (mathematically illiterate). It's the road much traveled by journalists.

On his site Niles uses as an example a national news story from 1996 announcing President Clinton's standing with voters had dropped. The journalist, in developing this astounding news item, relied on a poll tracking the election contest between Clinton and Sen. Bob Dole. Clinton's standing had fallen, the article reported, from 57 points down to 54.

What the journalist had failed to understand, Niles pointed out, was that the poll being relied on for the news story had a margin of error of four percentage points (a number completely covering the three-point discrepancy). The whole thing was a non-story. But from the average journalist's viewpoint, it didn't matter. It was a story. There was movement in the polls. And by golly, it was a matter of the public's right to know.

Which brings up another sad fact: Not only does it lead if it bleeds. If it's negative, it's a natural. In the final weeks of this last presidential race, journalists were "strikingly negative," according to Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism. More than half of the stories on both candidates were negative.

Even worse, more than half of newspapers scanned by researchers devoted their coverage to campaign strategy as opposed to campaign issues. Researchers confirmed the public's common knowledge that the media ignore substantive issues in reporting the presidential debates. Instead, the papers covered the debates as dramatic performances. After all, from a reporter's perspective, it's not a campaign of ideas and ideologies. That's not incendiary. If the campaign can be covered as a horse race, enough drama can be created to sell papers.

If you keep an eye on the journalism profession (which I do), you'll notice that journalists can admit mistakes, but only among themselves, quietly, and only when forced to.

For instance, a couple of years ago a national newspaper embarrassed itself by running a front-page article hyping new research and using a prominent scientist to predict an imminent cure for cancer. Trouble is, the article contained absolutely no new data. It was a rehash of old research on mice spun in a new way. Even the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine scoffs at the continuing correlation between mice and men. Journalists seem fundamentally unable to tell the difference. Attitude and gray matter, I think.

That brings up another issue that continues to baffle me. When a business or religious or political organization (or a combination of all three) commits a grievous public sin, legions of condescending, self-righteous media-types do everything in their power to whip up a frenzy over the event. Our media culture of public humiliation then seeks out and demands the resignation of any and all involved.

I've been anxiously waiting for a year now. I haven't heard anyone in the media demand that even one owner of a news organization, even one editor in chief, even one anchor announce a resignation over the fiasco and news manipulation surrounding the Bush/Gore election night announcement.

How come?