On Thursday's The O'Reilly Factor, former CBS News correspondent and current FNC analyst Bernard Goldberg pointed out the New York Times has historically had a double standard of reporting allegations of sex scandals by Republicans while downplaying or delaying reports of sex scandals by Bill Clinton. Before Bill O'Reilly clarified that while the Times did cover Gennifer Flowers, but "years and years and years after the fact," Goldberg complained: "The New York Times showed virtually no interest in Bill Clinton and Gennifer Flowers. It showed absolutely no front page interest in allegations by a reputable businesswoman named Juanita Broaddrick, who said that, when Bill Clinton was attorney general of Arkansas, he raped her. ... But they did have interest in putting on page one a story that alleged that Nancy Reagan, while she was married to Ronald Reagan, was having an affair with Frank Sinatra." Goldberg further contended that at the Times, "they have lots and lots of biases, but they think that anybody who thinks that is the one with the biases."
O'Reilly hosted the segment with Goldberg and, to argue the liberal side, FNC contributor Jane Hall of American University. The FNC host began by asking Goldberg what he thought of the situation. Goldberg:
Well, first, unless this lobbyist is a secret agent working for al-Qaeda, this is going to help John McCain a lot more than it's going to hurt him because nothing unites conservatives more than their visceral distrust of the New York Times. But let me put this into some kind of historical perspective. The New York Times showed virtually no interest in Bill Clinton and Jennifer Flowers. It showed absolutely no front page interest in allegations by a reputable businesswoman named Juanita Broaddrick, who said that, when Bill Clinton was attorney general of Arkansas, he raped her. They had no interest in those stores, virtually no interest. But they did have interest in putting on page one a story that alleged that Nancy Reagan, while she was married to Ronald Reagan, was having an affair with Frank Sinatra. And they got that from a Kitty Kelley book that didn't have one fact to substantiate it. And now, we have a page one story based on two people whose names we don't know, whose motivations we don't know, who think that John McCain might have had a romantic affair with a lobbyist. This is really thin stuff to put on page one of any newspaper.
After O'Reilly asked Goldberg why the Times does such things, the former CBS reporter continued:
Well, I'm not one of those people who says the New York Times gets its facts wrong. I think the New York Times has a problem that they will not admit to. And that is that they have lots and lots of biases, but they think that anybody who thinks that is the one with the biases. They think that they're pure and noble and above it all. But I just gave you some examples. If they have no interest in a story about a credible woman saying that Bill Clinton raped her when he was attorney general, but put Frank Sinatra and Nancy Reagan on page one, that shows their agenda, their biases.
Before getting to Hall, O'Reilly made the liberal argument in defense of the Times:
But the reason they do that is they say that anybody who's a Republican, or a conservative is a family values person, and anything they do is hypocritical and has to be exposed. Whereby the secular progressive, liberal arm, hey, anything goes. Their conduct should not be scrutinized.
Hall disagreed with allegations of bias at the New York Times, but she did at least agree that their McCain story is "very flimsy." Hall:
I disagree about whether the New York Times reported on Bill Clinton's affairs, but I think that this story was very flimsy. They didn't have the goods. If you read the New Republic story, and if it's correct, Bill Keller, the editor, had a lot of questions about it. They didn't ultimately have the goods.
During an exchange with Hall, O'Reilly soon clarified the Times' history of covering Clinton sex scandals:
O'REILLY: I have to correct the record. Bernie stated that Juanita Broaddrick, okay, who was out, not an anonymous source, basically you're out, okay, and Gennifer Flowers, not an anonymous source, out, told the world certain things happened. Told the world.
HALL: Yeah, and it was on the front, Flowers was on the front page of the New York Times.
O'REILLY: Not Juanita Broaddrick, and that was-
HALL: I don't know. Let's don't argue [about Juanita Broaddrick](?).
O'REILLY: Flowers was on, but Flowers was on years and years and years after the fact.
Below is a complete transcript of the segment from the Thursday February 21 The O'Reilly Factor on FNC:
BILL O'REILLY: Joining us now from Washington, Jane Hall. And from Greenville, South Carolina, Bernie Goldberg. Both are Fox News analysts. Bernie, so this is right up your wheel house. What do you think?
BERNARD GOLDBERG: Well, first, unless this lobbyist is a secret agent working for al-Qaeda, this is going to help John McCain a lot more than it's going to hurt him because nothing unites conservatives more than their visceral distrust of the New York Times. But let me put this into some kind of historical perspective. The New York Times showed virtually no interest in Bill Clinton and Jennifer Flowers. It showed absolutely no front page interest in allegations by a reputable businesswoman named Juanita Broaddrick, who said that, when Bill Clinton was attorney general of Arkansas, he raped her. They had no interest in those stores, virtually no interest. But they did have interest in putting on page one a story that alleged that Nancy Reagan, while she was married to Ronald Reagan, was having an affair with Frank Sinatra. And they got that from a Kitty Kelley book that didn't have one fact to substantiate it. And now, we have a page one story based on two people whose names we don't know, whose motivations we don't know, who think that John McCain might have had a romantic affair with a lobbyist. This is really thin stuff to put on page one of any newspaper.
O'REILLY: Why do they do it, Bernie?
GOLDBERG: Well, I'm not one of those people who says the New York Times gets its facts wrong. I think the New York Times has a problem that they will not admit to. And that is that they have lots and lots of biases, but they think that anybody who thinks that is the one with the biases. They think that they're pure and noble and above it all. But I just gave you some examples. If they have no interest in a story about a credible woman saying that Bill Clinton raped her when he was attorney general, but put Frank Sinatra and Nancy Reagan on page one-
O'REILLY: No, I know, but the reason they do that-
GOLDBERG: -that shows their agenda, their biases.
O'REILLY: Look, absolutely. But the reason they do that is they say that anybody who's a Republican, or a conservative is a family values person, and anything they do is hypocritical and has to be exposed. Whereby the secular progressive, liberal arm, hey, anything goes. Their conduct should not be scrutinized. Jane, how do you see it?
JANE HALL: You know, I disagree about whether the New York Times reported on Bill Clinton's affairs, but I think that this story was very flimsy. They didn't have the goods. If you read the New Republic story, and if it's correct, Bill Keller, the editor, had a lot of questions about it. They didn't ultimately have the goods. They don't prove that he had an affair. They don't really prove that she, this woman exercised undue influence. What they say is that some people on his staff were concerned about the appearance of impropriety. I think that Bill Keller may have felt pressure to run it. They didn't have the goods. And they-
O'REILLY: You don't think there's any ideology involved in this, Jane?
HALL: I don't, you know, I don't see ideology the way you guys see ideology.
O'REILLY: All right, absolutely, now, I'm going to-
HALL: Let me finish.
O'REILLY: Wait, I have to correct the record. Bernie stated that Juanita Broaddrick, okay, who was out, not an anonymous source, basically you're out, okay, and Gennifer Flowers, not an anonymous source, out, told the world certain things happened. Told the world.
HALL: Yeah, and it was on the front, Flowers was on the front page of the New York Times.
O'REILLY: Not Juanita Broaddrick, and that was-
HALL: I don't know. Let's don't argue [about Juanita Broaddrick](?).
O'REILLY: Flowers was on, but Flowers was on years and years and years after the fact.
HALL: I don't know about that. The point is that this is-
GOLDBERG: I do.
HALL: -beneath the New York Times. That's my point.
O'REILLY: All right.
HALL: They did a tabloid story that they couldn't prove.
O'REILLY: There's a reason why people take these kinds of risks, Jane. This is a huge risk for the New York Times. They know that I'm going to report it.
HALL: Well, I think that was totally misguided.
O'REILLY: Well, it ain't a matter of misguided. You don't take risks like that unless there's a reason.
GOLDBERG: Bill-
O'REILLY: Go ahead.
HALL: Unless your reporters are pressuring you to get the story out and feel they have something.
O'REILLY: No reporter's pressuring anybody. Go ahead, Bernie.
GOLDBERG: First of all, the Juanita Broaddrick story was on page B-10,000. It never appeared anywhere near the front section. And it only appeared in B-10,000, way, way deep into the story. But, you know, Bill, I think in some degree, I mean, I know why we're doing this story. And in some degree, it's important. But you know what? The New York Times, this isn't the same New York Times as when we were growing up. It's just not that important. It's not as important as it used to be.
O'REILLY: Yeah, but all the network news is leading with it, and every news agency-
GOLDBERG: Oh, yes.
O'REILLY: So McCain, look, either this is going to hurt him or help McCain. It's either going to hurt him or help him, you know, and people are now watching us to form an opinion.
GOLDBERG: I think it's going to help him.
HALL: I think it's going to help him.
GOLDBERG: Bill, my point is that when McCain says that he's deeply disappointed, that's one of the reasons conservatives aren't big fans of John McCain. Deeply disappointed that the New York Times did this? You're only disappointed when you expect something from an institution.
O'REILLY: So he should have lanced them?
GOLDBERG: And he should stop expecting something. What's that?
O'REILLY: He should have lanced them?
GOLDBERG: Well, listen, we have to keep open the possibility that the story is, in fact, accurate.
O'REILLY: Right, and that's always the thing. You have to, but they'll have to have a lot more. I'm going to give Jane the last word. Go ahead.
HALL: You know, I just want to say in defense of NBC News, Bennett was on the Today show slamming this story. So there was a lot of criticism of the story. They're raising the question-
O'REILLY: I'm talking about NBC News personnel.
HALL: Okay, you're talking about MSNBC.
O'REILLY: No, no, I'm talking, no, no, I'm talking about the Today show. All of their people lanced McCain today, Jane. It was awful.
HALL: But they had Bennett on. You have to be fair.
O'REILLY: So what?
HALL: They had Bennett on.
O'REILLY: That's a token.
GOLDBERG: Jesus Christ.
O'REILLY: Their personnel -- Russert, Lauer, Gregory, and another guy -- bang! Right in the face, Jane. Wrong.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
But why would just mere women warrant a headline
February 22, 2008 - 19:08 ET by Lame CherryWhy would southern women of all things warrant a headline in the Times of New York.
I mean who in the upper staff of the Times has not forced a woman into sex sometime in their lives? Was there not that girl they got drunk at high school and then dumped? Wasn't there that teenage next door they got high and did while her parents were away? What about that college prank with that "bimbo" they held down and took turns with...........and how about that intern they plied with promises and then threatened who put out?
Why would a woman warrant a headline of all things......when assault is how they treat women.
WHEN IS THE WOMAN WHO IS BEING SULLIED IN THIS GOING TO HAVE ONE PERSON STICK UP FOR HER??????
Everyone whines about John McCain..........how about the telecom babe who has family and her claim to fame now is being an adulteress splashed all across the world..........whether it is true or not.
Clinton got plenty of headlines and McCain got his too.....but they were males. Women in the eyes of the Times are objects and property to be whored and used.
When is someone going to call the Times on that.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Shhhhh! Dope and Homosex rumors!
February 22, 2008 - 19:18 ET by Shooter1002O well, if they can't use and abuse a woman for their agenda purposes then I guess the Larry Sinclair issue won't see the light of day! No women involved there. And I thought they'd hide it since Obama's a Democrat. Biased me.
Surprised
February 22, 2008 - 19:23 ET by Jerry MackAnyone that is surprised that the NYT ran a story like this is someone that has their head in their ***. As Rush said " This is what they do"
The msm of all venues will
February 22, 2008 - 19:27 ET by bigtimerThe msm of all venues will always be obviously biased...there is absolutely no accountability with few exceptions... therefore it will continue with the leftist extreme biases.
I see no way out with the exception of fighting back like NBs and Fox does..of course the internet and a few other entities..
Seems to me the shares of stock and decreasing sales or ratings depending on the situation seem not to matter..they just continue on...and on...and on with the same old leftist blathering tripe.
It is maddening.
And Jane Hall offered her
February 22, 2008 - 19:32 ET by Chris NormanAnd Jane Hall offered her usual knee-jerk weak excuses for the Times non-handling of those two stories. Surprisingly, she condemned the McCain story as weak, but refused to acknowledged the obvious political nature of it being published.
Was NewsBusters around when
February 22, 2008 - 19:47 ET by JerWas NewsBusters around when the NYT was slamming Bill Clinton for eight years during the tenure of senior editor Howell Raines [who publicly stated his intense dislike of Clinton]?
If so, what was the reaction to the Times' leading role in the Whitewater investigation, the multitude of articles by Jeff Gerth on the Chinese/missile technology transfer scandal, and the scores of anti-Clinton editorials?
Jer
No Newsbusters wasn't around then
February 22, 2008 - 20:00 ET by Dee Bunkthey are only about 2.5 yrs old. Clinton was too conservative for the NYT. I'm sure all of their editorials were critical of his positions that were not far left enough - like NAFTA and signing on to the Republican Welfare reform.
We must begin to address the
February 22, 2008 - 20:18 ET by Chris NormanWe must begin to address the horrific amount of conservative bias in the mainstream media. It's been a problem for years...
I'm not contending NYT had
February 22, 2008 - 21:47 ET by JerI'm not contending NYT had a conservative bias...just an anti-Clinton bias.
Jer
Bernie, Bernie, Bernie, you
February 22, 2008 - 21:28 ET by motherbeltBernie, Bernie, Bernie, you know that Juanita Broaddrick story is "old news, it's ancient history!!" That's the Clinton tactic: keep it buried long enough to be able to classify it as no longer relevant...kind of like a statute of limitations.
I love O'Reilly's theory:
But the reason they do that is they say that anybody who's a
Republican, or a conservative is a family values person, and anything
they do is hypocritical and has to be exposed. Whereby the secular
progressive, liberal arm, hey, anything goes. Their conduct should not
be scrutinized.
Well there ya go! If you don't have any principles, you can't violate them, so you'll never be a hypocrite!!
mb...I have no idea what
February 23, 2008 - 03:59 ET by Jermb...I have no idea what may or may not have occurred between Clinton and Broaderick. However, it is my recollection that the story had not been buried by the Clintons, but had been a very public issue during one or more of his Arkansas campaigns.
To the best of my memory--and I'm sure the actual details are researchable--Ms. Broaderick vehemently denied any sexual assault, and signed affadavits attesting to that, for almost twenty years. Then, around the time of the Lewinsky scandal, she changed her mind and her story, claiming she was actually raped by Clinton.
Maybe she was. I don't think it will ever be conclusively proved one way or the other. Clinton does seem to fit the profile of a serial fondler more than a rapist however.
Jer
I was living in Tulsa at the
February 23, 2008 - 11:13 ET by docbI was living in Tulsa at the time and the Broderick scandal was over shadowed with the ongoing Flowers affair. Ms. Broderick was theatened and slimed and had her family threatened...This was not unusual for the times..the clintons had the Highway patrol under their thumb.. All manor of shannigans were the order of the day. Lewinsky was just one of a long line of women they abused and the media did downplay it... Hey, when the news broke and he was president, T. Brokaw threatened to quit if he had to report the Broderick story...That is how deep the protection was for b.clinton. However, the media really prefers to cover salacious sex scandals in the republican party--Craig and that other guy with the interns. But the NYT stepped in it with McCain they did not have the goods...too thin.