NYT Forced To Correct Nikki Haley Hit Piece After Burying Obama Connection
The double standards from the left are on display again — and this time, it’s about curtains.
A report from The New York Times that at first glance seems to blame expensive furnishings on United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley has sparked outrage from liberals, including former members of the Obama administration.
The minor scandal started after The Times brought to light a $52,701 curtain purchase for the U.N. ambassador’s residence in New York City. Quickly seizing on a chance to bash the Trump administration, the newspaper ran a photo of Haley with the story, and the left piled on her for wasteful spending.
“Nikki Haley’s View of New York Is Priceless. Her Curtains? $52,701,” declared the bold headline from the newspaper.
But there was one major problem: The high-priced curtains were approved by the Obama administration before President Donald Trump or Haley took office. She had nothing to do with them, a fact that was buried several paragraphs down in The Times article.
That didn’t stop Democrats such as Brett Bruen, who worked under Obama for several years, from trying to pin the spending on Haley.
“How can you, on the one hand, tell diplomats that basic needs cannot be met and, on the other hand, spend more than $50,000 on a customized curtain system for the ambassador to the U.N.?” Bruen whined to the New York newspaper.
Yes, a former Obama official was complaining about a government purchase that his own administration approved.
Other leftists, including Andrew Stroehlein of Human Rights Watch, joined in the kerfuffle, using the curtain purchase as a chance to slam Haley.
When @nikkihaley's not busy rejecting the idea of universal human rights, she's busy spending $52,701 of US tax payer money on curtains for her residence…
Milk the people, screw the world.
Fine priorities you got there… https://t.co/WrDYvQwhdd pic.twitter.com/qOBDLqG69k
— Andrew Stroehlein (@astroehlein) September 14, 2018
In addition to the fact that the scandalous curtains were approved by the Obama administration, apparently it also didn’t matter that they may have been necessary for privacy and security reasons, or that the Trump administration has proposed cutting the State Department’s budget by over 30 percent to save costs.
Liberals like Bruen, Stroehlein and New York Times reporter Gardiner Harris likely knew all of this, but decided to bash the current ambassador anyway.
It didn’t have the desired effect. Harris’ tweet of his story was “ratioed” in a big way, with more than 1,200 comments compared with about 60 retweets and 90 likes.
https://twitter.com/RobProvince/status/1040577848568934401
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is #fakenews
— WJ Lawrence (@Lucas_Ranch) September 14, 2018
A day after The Times piece was published, the paper issued an editor’s note acknowledging that it was wrong to imply Haley and the Trump administration were to blame.
“An earlier version of this article and headline created an unfair impression about who was responsible for the purchase in question,” The Times admitted.
“(T)he decision on leasing the ambassador’s residence and purchasing the curtains was made during the Obama administration, according to current and former officials,” the note said. “The article should not have focused on Ms. Haley, nor should a picture of her have been used. The article and headline have now been edited to reflect those concerns, and the picture has been removed.”
By itself, this error and retraction could be dismissed as an honest mistake. As part of the larger trend of trying to pin nearly everything on President Trump and his administration, however, it looks much more suspect.
By trying to turn everything into an anti-Trump scandal, the mainstream media have lost sight of their core purpose: accurately reporting important news.
If there was any doubt as to why establishment outlets like the once-great New York Times are losing respect from the American people, this should clear it up.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
