.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Friday, September 14, 2018


NYT’s Editors Issue An Extremely Embarrassing Correction

NYT just wrote a “bombshell” story on Nikki Haley’s ridiculously overpriced curtains.

The State Department spent $52,701 last year buying customized and mechanized curtains for the picture windows in Nikki R. Haley’s official residence as ambassador to the United Nations, just as the department was undergoing deep budget cuts and had frozen hiring.

Just one problem.

This happened in 2016 under the Obama administration. Trump and Haley had nothing to do with it, as was implied in the original version. It’s confounding, because NYT even acknowledged the truth in later in the post.

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, he said.

NYT was ruthlessly called out, so the editors decided to “review” the piece.

Why didn’t they review it before? That’s my question.

As it turns out, they agreed the piece was misleading and ridiculous, so they updated the post and provided this note:

Our original article was a huge crapload of #FakeNews.

HAHAHA. Just kidding. That’s what I would’ve suggested though. Here’s the real note:

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.

I like my version better, but whatevz.


Gee, I must have missed the “We’re sorry.”
... or "we lied and somebody caught us but it's Trump's fault just the same."
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?