The New York Times Smears Nikki Haley For the Obama Administration’s Interior Decorating

[Auburn85 432]

https://www.mediaite.com/online/the-new-york-times-smears-nikki-haley-for-the-obama-administrations-interior-decorating/

 

The Trump administration has been plagued with reckless spending scandals, most notably from EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, HHS secretary Tom Price, and VA secretary David Shulkin, all who have lost their jobs.

Now, it’s Nikki Haley who is being accused of such carelessness.

The New York Times ran a story with the headline “State Department Spent $52,701 on Curtains for Nikki Haley’s Residence.” Obviously, such a headline does not look good for the Ambassador to the United Nations as it clearly suggests she, or at best her staff, made the decision to splurge like royalty while the State Department experiences cuts.

But if you took the time to read the article, there is more to learn than what the headline offers.

This comes four paragraphs in:

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.

It also appears the luxurious curtains serve an actual purpose:

Ms. Haley’s residence is particularly grand since it is used for official entertaining. But her deputy’s is also very nice, having served as the location for Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s intimate steak dinner in May with Kim Yong-chol, North Korea’s top nuclear weapons negotiator. During the dinner, Mr. Pompeo used its sweeping views to point out various features of New York City’s skyline to the senior official from the world’s most reclusive country.

So, between those pieces of information — that the Obama administration ordered the curtains and that Haley’s residence is used to entertain diplomats — one wonders what exactly is so controversial. Because the only thing controversial is the headline.

And that’s enough to do damage. Let’s see how the story is being carried on Twitter:

State Dept., suffering from budget cuts, paid $52,000 for curtains in Nikki Haley’s Manhattan apartment. Scoop by@GardinerHarris. https://t.co/JOnhgPajxJ The rent is $58,000 per month. Taxpayer funded.

— Edward Wong (@comradewong) September 14, 2018

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,

America https://t.co/j9h5t50GPb

— David Hogg (@davidhogg111) September 14, 2018

Ted Lieu

 

✔@tedlieu

 

 

This is not okay. As a Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I call on @HouseForeign Chairman @RepEdRoyce to hold an oversight hearing on @StateDept spending on @nikkihaley and her deputy. https://twitter.com/comradewong/status/1040406689160282117 …

12:24 AM - Sep 14, 2018

•  
  9,769
•  
  6,326 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

 

 

 

Aggregators of the report are no less irresponsible than the Times:

The Hill

 

✔@thehill

 

 

State Dept spent more than $52,000 on Nikki Haley’s apartment curtains: report http://hill.cm/7jHnIAH  pic.twitter.com/qiWlRS1qu9

8:21 AM - Sep 14, 2018

•  
  287
•  
  882 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

 

 

 

In the age of social media, a misleading headline like the one used by the Times reaches millions who do not read past the first couple of paragraphs. A headline like “State Department Spent $52,701 on Curtains for Nikki Haley’s Residence” certainly arouses the #Resistance, and flies around social media faster than critics blowing the whistle. The author of the piece, Gardiner Harris, surely knew with the headline he used and burying the key facts about those curtains that it would cause unnecessary trouble for Haley as this story has spread like wildfire.

The question for Harris is that why would he purposefully stir up a fake controversy about one of the most competent and respected figures in the Trump administration, especially in such turbulent times?

Whatever his answer may be, this smear attempt is the latest example why conservatives and Trump supporters don’t trust the media.

It is disgusting whenever President Donald Trump calls the media the “enemy of the people,” but when they run misleading stories like this one or get bombshell reports completely wrong like we’ve seen time and time again, this hostile rhetoric resonates further with his base.

Despite the attacks from this president, The New York Times continues to be one of the most credible news outlets in the country. And if they want to preserve such a reputation, they shouldn’t publish these ludicrous hit pieces.

[Auburn85 432]

https://www.mediaite.com/online/new-york-times-issues-serious-editors-note-to-nikki-haley-curtains-report-created-unfair-impression/

 

New York Times Issues Major Editor’s Note to Nikki Haley Curtains Report: Created ‘Unfair Impression’

 

A few hours after publication, the New York Times changed the headline on the report, removed the featured photo of Haley, and issued a large editor’s note at the top of the page.

Now the report is headlined “State Department Spent $52,701 on Curtains for Residence of U.N. Envoy.”

The editors’ note admitted it was unfair to Haley to make her the focus of 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.

[Mikey 16,569]

So they publish a story that's a total lie, let it get all over the social media and then come back with "oops, sorry" after the damage has been done? This, like much of the media's other misinformation, was done with malice aforethought. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Just typical NYT fake news.

[DKW 86 7,419]

10 hours ago, Mikey said:

So they publish a story that's a total lie, let it get all over the social media and then come back with "oops, sorry" after the damage has been done? This, like much of the media's other misinformation, was done with malice aforethought. 

The AmericanMedia know how this system works. The NYT gave the story plenty of time for twittishits to go do their damage and that was the whole point.  Now they can CLAIM they did the right thing while knowing they let lil twittishits like Hogg go drive the fake news cycle to millions of mindless minions. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

In case you want to know the thinking behind the article, do the link on Gardiner Harris. He has written other articles that are just as slanted. This last article was rewritten by someone else correcting Harris obvious bias. Pompeo took a residence on a military base to save money. Instead Harris twists the story into Pompeo kicking an officer out of housing. He lies about the housing on a minor, nearly unused base near Arlington. 

Folks this was a cold blooded hit piece by the NYT. It did exactly as it was intended to do. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

If you want to see just how dedicated the MSM is to this lie, go to Snopes and get the link to the Vogue article. While they added an addendum to the article and link back to the original NYT misleading article, they did not update the NYT original article nor remove the picture of Haley. Their article is still linkable in all its misleading glory...

[DKW 86 7,419]

https://www.vogue.com/article/nikki-haley-curtains-trump-administration-big-spenders

Vogue still pushing the crapola...Haleys picture AND the BS slant is still there on their website.

[AUDub 11,144]

19 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

https://www.vogue.com/article/nikki-haley-curtains-trump-administration-big-spenders

Vogue still pushing the crapola...Haleys picture AND the BS slant is still there on their website.

Article is a week old and the correction is plastered across the top. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

Article is a week old and the correction is plastered across the top. 

All said in my previous post. 

AND the article with pictures and misleading content is still there.

If you are going to post up on this you better raise your game.

[AUDub 11,144]

2 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

All said in my previous post. 

AND the article with pictures and misleading content is still there.

If you are going to post up on this you better raise your game.

Missed that.

But you sure seem awfully mad about something for which they’ve issued a correction that precedes the article.

[DKW 86 7,419]

The damage of the article was already done and that is THE point. They corrected the story after it had been out there and tweeted 1200-1500 times. 

The damage was done and in Vogues case is likely still being done. Goebbels would be proud of the propaganda aspects of this. Tell the bad truth, but in such a way that it gives the false impression it was all negative on someone completely not associated with it. The Vogue piece still links Haley to over spending idiots. 

[homersapien 11,357]

Another perspective on this:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/26/nikki-haley-curtains-new-york-times-220622

Why I’m Mad About Nikki Haley’s $52,000 Curtains

The New York Times had it right the first time.

 

.......Curtaingate went viral last week when the New York Times published an article headlined, “Nikki Haley’s View of New York is Priceless. Her Curtains? $52,701.” When the State Department and Ambassador Nikki Haley complained, saying they had no say in the matter, the Times changed the headline and appended this extraordinary editor’s 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.”

That is simply not true. This project was not awarded out until April 2017. Even if it had been funded by the previous administration, federal contracts can at any time be stopped or delayed. So Haley was responsible for the purchase.

By time the Trump administration chose to move forward, spending had been cut off for many essential services. Security enhancements for our embassies in dangerous posts like Baghdad were not being funded. I served in Iraq and know the risks my colleagues face. Medical care for the children of State Department employees with special needs remains blocked to this day. I have a young son and can’t imagine not being able to give him the care he needs. Why were custom curtains and an expensive system to operate them—at a cost equivalent to many Americans’ annual income—considered more urgent than the safety and health of Ambassador Haley’s colleagues?

What kind of public leader pursues costly upgrades to their residence even as their employees lack basic support? The tweet I initially sent was meant to highlight the hypocrisy of those procurement priorities. This wasn’t another case of extravagant spending by a senior Trump official, like Tom Price’s air travel or Scott Pruitt’s secure phone system. Ambassador Haley demonstrated a different kind of entitlement: It was an egregious example of the selective and self-serving application of Trump’s directive to slash spending.

There is a certain irony in their justifying the spending based on plans drawn up by the prior administration. President Donald Trump and Ambassador Haley have aggressively undertaken efforts to dismantle and defund programs from the Obama era. They have abandoned long-standing American commitments and traditions without regard for the cost or consequences. While her custom drapes were being installed, the ambassador oversaw more than $350 million in cuts to peacekeeping, health and development programs at the United Nations—cuts that will cause greater instability around the world. They are also causing a precipitous decline in American influence, as we are witnessing this week in New York.

This isn’t just about curtains, and it isn’t just about money, either. One of the first lessons you learn as a diplomat is that from Day One the ambassador is responsible for everything that happens at his or her post. Another point they drill into you at diplomat school is the importance of setting the right tone from the start. Ambassador Haley’s effort to shift blame on others weakens her standing internally and across the United Nations. It sends a message to staff and fellow ambassadors she isn’t going to be accountable for actions that happen on her watch.

Despite Secretary Mike Pompeo’s frequent boasts about restoring swagger, American diplomacy continues to struggle and shrink. The budget he put forward to Congress would cut spending by more than 25 percent. While leaders on Capitol Hill may eventually restore some of those funds, the administration will likely continue its policy of not using all of the money allocated to diplomats. The State Department has also not completely lifted the hiring freeze, leaving significant staffing gaps. As just one example, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security can’t get authorization to fill positions to protect embassies and Americans.

Most of the attention paid to the curtains focused on where the idea started, not who decided to put it out for contract. When President Obama came into office, he canceled the Marine One project, which was already on order. The country was in the midst of a recession and the project was just too expensive. Some Republicans may ask: What would President Ronald Reagan have done? Well, he actually did cancel plans for the redecoration of and new furniture for the White House. But as for Haley, she didn’t speak up, nor was she willing to pull up her own blinds as budgets fell.

In reality, the question I was asking was less about whether Nikki Haley needed custom, control-operated curtains. It had more to do with what our diplomats deserve. If we have to prioritize, I would put the safety of those serving our country overseas first. If we have to cut, then politicians, as well as public servants should be prepared to make sacrifices. If we are going to effectively represent America abroad and retain the next generation of diplomatic leaders, then we need to do better.

 

 

[DKW 86 7,419]

12 hours ago, homersapien said:

Another perspective on this:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/26/nikki-haley-curtains-new-york-times-220622

Why I’m Mad About Nikki Haley’s $52,000 Curtains

The New York Times had it right the first time.

 

.......Curtaingate went viral last week when the New York Times published an article headlined, “Nikki Haley’s View of New York is Priceless. Her Curtains? $52,701.” When the State Department and Ambassador Nikki Haley complained, saying they had no say in the matter, the Times changed the headline and appended this extraordinary editor’s 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.”

That is simply not true. This project was not awarded out until April 2017. Even if it had been funded by the previous administration, federal contracts can at any time be stopped or delayed. So Haley was responsible for the purchase.

By time the Trump administration chose to move forward, spending had been cut off for many essential services. Security enhancements for our embassies in dangerous posts like Baghdad were not being funded. I served in Iraq and know the risks my colleagues face. Medical care for the children of State Department employees with special needs remains blocked to this day. I have a young son and can’t imagine not being able to give him the care he needs. Why were custom curtains and an expensive system to operate them—at a cost equivalent to many Americans’ annual income—considered more urgent than the safety and health of Ambassador Haley’s colleagues?

What kind of public leader pursues costly upgrades to their residence even as their employees lack basic support? ( I am sorry, did you ask that of Secretary Clinton and all the security upgrades Amb Stevens was begging for at Benghazi? Didnt think so) The tweet I initially sent was meant to highlight the hypocrisy of those procurement priorities. This wasn’t another case of extravagant spending by a senior Trump official, like Tom Price’s air travel or Scott Pruitt’s secure phone system. Ambassador Haley demonstrated a different kind of entitlement: It was an egregious example of the selective and self-serving application of Trump’s directive to slash spending.

There is a certain irony in their justifying the spending based on plans drawn up by the prior administration. President Donald Trump and Ambassador Haley have aggressively undertaken efforts to dismantle and defund programs from the Obama era. They have abandoned long-standing American commitments ( Is that where we actually make NATO Countries contribute their fair share?) and traditions without regard for the cost or consequences. While her custom drapes were being installed, the ambassador oversaw more than $350 million in cuts to peacekeeping, health and development programs at the United Nations—cuts that will cause greater instability around the world. They are also causing a precipitous decline in American influence, as we are witnessing this week in New York.

This isn’t just about curtains, and it isn’t just about money, either. One of the first lessons you learn as a diplomat is that from Day One the ambassador is responsible for everything (Ambasador Stevens took that responsibility and was denied just about all help by the Prev Admin.) that happens at his or her post. Another point they drill into you at diplomat school is the importance of setting the right tone from the start. Ambassador Haley’s effort to shift blame on others weakens her standing internally and across the United Nations. It sends a message to staff and fellow ambassadors she isn’t going to be accountable for actions that happen on her watch.

Despite Secretary Mike Pompeo’s frequent boasts about restoring swagger, American diplomacy continues to struggle and shrink. The budget he put forward to Congress would cut spending by more than 25 percent. While leaders on Capitol Hill may eventually restore some of those funds, the administration will likely continue its policy of not using all of the money allocated to diplomats. The State Department has also not completely lifted the hiring freeze, leaving significant staffing gaps. As just one example, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security can’t get authorization to fill positions to protect embassies and Americans.

Most of the attention paid to the curtains focused on where the idea started, not who decided to put it out for contract. When President Obama came into office, he canceled the Marine One project, which was already on order. The country was in the midst of a recession and the project was just too expensive. Some Republicans may ask: What would President Ronald Reagan have done? Well, he actually did cancel plans for the redecoration of and new furniture for the White House. But as for Haley, she didn’t speak up, nor was she willing to pull up her own blinds as budgets fell.

In reality, the question I was asking was less about whether Nikki Haley needed custom, control-operated curtains. It had more to do with what our diplomats deserve. If we have to prioritize, I would put the safety of those serving our country overseas first. If we have to cut, then politicians, as well as public servants should be prepared to make sacrifices. If we are going to effectively represent America abroad and retain the next generation of diplomatic leaders, then we need to do better.

4

Sorry, no sale. Haley may be the one and only bright spot in the Trump Administration other than the economy picking up. Borking her because she is female and a minority is going to blow up in someone's face soon.

Bottom line: They were still never ordered by her nor was the residence leased by her. All this overly extravagant expense came from someone else. The expense is nauseating, but please put it where it belongs, on the people that ordered it and signed the lease on the residence. She never asked for the quote, etc. These damn drapes were never her idea. She had nothing to do with that. These ludicrously expensive drapes were someone in the previous administration's idea.

[homersapien 11,357]

8 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Sorry, no sale. Haley may be the one and only bright spot in the Trump Administration other than the economy picking up. Borking her because she is female and a minority is going to blow up in someone's face soon.

Bottom line: They were still never ordered by her nor was the residence leased by her. All this overly extravagant expense came from someone else. The expense is nauseating, but please put it where it belongs, on the people that ordered it and signed the lease on the residence. She never asked for the quote, etc. These damn drapes were never her idea. She had nothing to do with that. These ludicrously expensive drapes were someone in the previous administration's idea.

I think the article speaks for itself. 

And no one has "borked" Haley for being a minority or a female.  That's a red herring.

[DKW 86 7,419]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

I think the article speaks for itself. 

And no one has "borked" Haley for being a minority or a female.  That's a red herring.

You really think she is getting Borked because what then? This was a hit piece. Upfront, cold-blooded. hit piece.

If you read the authors other works, it is plain as can be to see. The headline was intentionally created to give a false impression. 

Twitter-Bait.

[homersapien 11,357]

12 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

You really think she is getting Borked because what then? This was a hit piece. Upfront, cold-blooded. hit piece.

If you read the authors other works, it is plain as can be to see. The headline was intentionally created to give a false impression. 

I don't know if the implications of the original article were intentional or not.  Probably so, but it doesn't really matter. 

The facts as represented in the above article suggest Haley could have easily canceled the order, but she didn't, even though many other projects initiated by the Obama administration - most of which were far more significant and arguably justified - were cancelled.

This suggests she may have used the Obama initiated excuse as political cover.

(And it was you who suggested Haley was "borked" due to her sex and/or ethnicity, so don't beg the question as if it were me.)

[DKW 86 7,419]

On 9/27/2018 at 8:40 PM, homersapien said:

I don't know if the implications of the original article were intentional or not.  Probably so, but it doesn't really matter. 

The facts as represented in the above article suggest Haley could have easily canceled the order, but she didn't, even though many other projects initiated by the Obama administration - most of which were far more significant and arguable justified - were cancelled.

This suggests she may have used the Obama initiated excuse as political cover.

Or after cutting the budget $350M as was stated, maybe she just didnt catch all of the bad spending of another administration. 

I am so f$%kin tired of the "Must Be Evil" stuff. If anyone is from the other side of the aisle, it does not make them evil and open for destruction. This was a plain and simple hit piece. No more. It was nothing to do with the truth. If it was, the truth wouldnt have been hidden in the 4th paragraph. 

Twitter-bait.

[homersapien 11,357]

12 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Or after sutting the budget $350M as was stated, maybe she just didnt catch all of the bad spending of another administration. 

I am so f$%kin tired of the "Must Be Evil" stuff. If anyone is from the other side of the aisle, it does not make them evil and open for destruction. This was a plain and simple hit piece. No more. It was nothing to do with the truth. If it was, the truth wouldnt have been hidden in the 4th paragraph. 

Twitter-bait.

That's fine for you to think, but it has nothing to do with my post.  So I am not sure why you quoted me. I am not claiming anyone "must be evil".

I am just commenting on the facts as they emerge.

 

[DKW 86 7,419]

13 hours ago, homersapien said:

That's fine for you to think, but it has nothing to do with my post.  So I am not sure why you quoted me. I am not claiming anyone "must be evil".

I am just commenting on the facts as they emerge.

 

<smfh>

[homersapien 11,357]

12 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

<smfh>

That must be a little difficult with it being so far up your ass.

Haley could have canceled the drapery contract at any time, just as she was canceling other Obama-initiated contracts at that time.  FACT.

Now, did she overlook it?  I suppose that's possible.

But for anyone to blame the expenditure on Obama because his administration initiated the contract is a disingenuous dodge.