By Erik Wemple, September 14, 2018

The headline on a hotly shared New York Times story now reads:

“State Department Spent $52,701 on Curtains for Nikki Haley’s Residence.”

Sounds like a lot of money for curtains, right? Indeed. But that headline is a far less clicky version than the one it replaced, which stoked a great deal of outrage online. It read, “Nikki Haley’s View of New York Is Priceless. Her Curtains? $52,701.” Based on that presentation, someone might just conclude that Haley herself charged taxpayers big money for the curtains on her government-provided digs in New York. She is the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, a Trump administration appointee.

Lo and behold, people did reach that very conclusion:

Dear Nikki Haley,
There are starving children in America everyday and you have the audacity to misappropriate thousands of tax dollars for your own lavish lifestyle. Resign immediately
sincerely,

— David Hogg (@davidhogg111)
********
kevin russell @kevinrns

Niki Haley is another Swamp Thing in #MAGA Trump's Big Ol' Swamp
$52 thousand for curtains in the $58 thousand a month Penthouse.
9:04 AM - Sep 14, 2018

kevin russell
**********

Except, the details: “A spokesman for Ms. Haley said plans to buy the curtains were made in 2016, during the Obama administration. Ms. Haley had no say in the purchase
[the failing NYT blunders AGAIN!!!



Backlash to the initial New York Times presentation has been robust, as well it should be. There are plenty of examples of bona fide Trump-era abuses of taxpayer money — see Scott Pruitt’s strange security purchases and Tom Price’s travel expenses. No need to fashion a headline suggesting that Haley belongs to that group.

How did the New York Times cover the U.N. ambassador’s residence during the Obama presidency. Sweetly: “Pint-Size Diplomacy at Play in U.N. Ambassador’s Penthouse.”

The Erik Wemple Blog has asked the New York Times for comment on the piece.

Update: The New York Times has affixed this note to the piece:

An earlier version of this article and headline created an unfair impression about who was responsible for the purchase in question. While Nikki R. Haley is the current ambassador to the United Nations, the decision on leasing the ambassador’s residence and purchasing the curtains was made during the Obama administration, according to current and former officials. 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.

How about telling your readers whose picture should have been used in the article and instead of Haley put that person's picture in the article? Purely a rhetorical question. IT'S THE WRONG PARTY!!! that''s why! Partisan reporting all the way!!! TM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/eri...m=.594b0279cf1a