On Wednesday's The O'Reilly Factor, FNC's Bill O'Reilly and Bernard Goldberg talked about the double standard of the New York Times in ignoring the life story of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales during his confirmation, while playing up a similar life background in the liberal Judge Sonia Sotomayor. O'Reilly opened his discussion with Goldberg reminding viewers of Gonzales's history of growing up in poverty, his service in the Air Force, and his Harvard education:
This is Alberto Gonzales' resume: Migrant parents. Poorer than the judge's parents, poorer, okay? Gets out of high school, joins the Air Force, does well in the Air Force. They send him to Air Force Academy. Graduates at the top of his class. He goes to Harvard Law School. Bernie, correct me if I'm wrong, in his confirmation hearing, I didn't hear any compelling stories out of the New York Times. I didn't hear any NBC people weeping about Alberto Gonzales.
Goldberg brought up the case of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, whose own history of poverty was not played up, and did not lead to "glowingly" positive coverage:
They noted, they noted that Clarence Thomas came from a poor background, but that didn't, that didn't encourage them to write glowingly of Clarence Thomas, you know, as a possible nominee to the court. But, you know, in this Judge Sonia Sotomayor's case, today's New York Times, as we all know, the most important newspaper in the galaxy, they ran a lead editorial about her.
Below is a complete transcript of the interview from the Wednesday, May 27, The O'Reilly Factor on FNC:
BILL O'REILLY: And in the "Impact Segment" tonight, the liberal media overjoyed that Judge Sonia Sotomayor may most likely go to the Supreme Court. That's predictable as the court has the power to change the country. And another liberal on it's what many in the media want. Joining us now from Miami, Fox News analyst Bernie Goldberg, author of the big book A Slobbering Love Affair. Good Father's Day gift. All right, I hold in my hand, Bernie Goldberg, who can't, can you see me in Miami, by the way? You got a monitor there?
BERNARD GOLDBERG: Yes.
O'REILLY: This is Alberto Gonzales' resume. Migrant parents. Poorer than the judge's parents, poorer. Okay? Gets out of high school, joins the Air Force. Does well in the Air Force. They send him to Air Force Academy. Graduates at the top of his class. He goes to Harvard Law School. Bernie, correct me if I'm wrong, in his confirmation hearing, I didn't hear any compelling stories out of the New York Times. I didn't hear any NBC people weeping about Alberto Gonzales. Did you?
GOLDBERG: No, because they don't write stories like that when the compelling story is about a conservative. They noted, they noted that Clarence Thomas came from a poor background, but that didn't, that didn't encourage them to write glowingly of Clarence Thomas, you know, as a possible nominee to the court. But, you know, in this Judge Sonia Sotomayor's case, today's New York Times, as we all know, the most important newspaper in the galaxy, they ran a lead editorial about her, a lead editorial. And there's not one word in this editorial, there's not one syllable in this editorial about her decision upholding, upholding racial discrimination against firefighters simply because they're white firefighters .
O'REILLY: I'm going to interrupt you. Alan Colmes is going to explain that later on in the broadcast today, Bernie. So I want you to stick around. But we know that the New York Times is not in business to inform its readers. They're in business to promote a liberal agenda, as is NBC News,
and down the line. To be fair, the Wall Street Journal ran a lead editorial that opposed the nomination today. But she's going to get confirmed unless there's some big thing nobody knows about. Here's the key question. The media, and we talk about this every week. The media is now as corrupt, I think, as any time in the republic. It's never been more corrupt than today, in 2009 in May. Is that irreversible, Bernie? Is it going to change when the New York Times goes bankrupt, which it will, or is it over?
GOLDBERG: Well, first, let me say about what you just said, I don't have a problem with a liberal newspaper falling in love with a liberal judge nominated by a liberal President who they have already fallen in love with. I get that. I mean, that part is fine. But the corruption comes in, Bill, when they don't acknowledge important things such as the fact that she upheld discrimination based on the color of somebody's skin.
O'REILLY: Somebody's skin. That's been going on for years.
GOLDBERG: That is not, well, it's been going on for years with affirmative action. But that's even the bigger story that they don't acknowledge. I'm glad you said that. The bigger story is that we live, we now live in a brave new world where liberals, liberals not only tolerate racial discrimination, but they celebrate it as long as it's the right kind of racial discrimination. And they always dress it up as some kind of decency when it's the exact opposite, the exact opposite from decency.
O'REILLY: Well, you know, look, the ends justify the means in the so- called march to diversity in many of these. But I want to get back to my question, because it's important.
GOLDBERG: Yeah, I think.
O'REILLY: Is it all over, is it all over? If you look at the landscape, it's 80-20 now -- 80 percent pushing a left-wing agenda, 20 percent saying no, we would like to remain a traditional country.
GOLDBERG: Right.
O'REILLY: It's 80-20. Is that a trend that we've been seeing in five years? Or is it in stone forever?
GOLDBERG: I think it may, in fact, be in stone forever because when it reaches that point, it's reached critical mass. And there's nothing in the culture to say we won't accept this. The point I just made, Bill, about how liberals in the culture celebrate racial discrimination, that's the same culture that allows this to happen. People who don't like the New York Times, who don't like MSNBC or NBC News, they have already left. They're gone. They are not coming back. The readers of the New York Times, their circulation isn't going up. If anything, it' s going to continue to shrink. Critical mass has been achieved. They won't turn back because they don't feel the need to, even, even as they go down the drain financially. Because the only thing that trumps money for them is their heartfelt ideology. They have corrupted their profession. And they won't turn back voluntarily. And it's probably too late to turn back in any event.
O'REILLY: All right, Bernie. Thanks very much.
