NYT Draws Shade Over $53K Curtains Story ☁️

Michael Brochstein / SOPA Images / LightRocket via Getty Images

Michael Brochstein / SOPA Images / LightRocket via Getty Images

Expensive curtains

The New York Times originally reported (in a now edited story) that the State Department approved $52,701 for automatic curtains in the new residence of the US Ambassador to the UN. The State Department defended the purchase stating “the curtains enhance the security of the residence.” The curtains were ordered in 2016 before Trump’s election and subsequent appointment of Nikki Haley as US Ambassador to the UN.

NYT bias

The original NYT story unfairly targeted Haley by naming her repeatedly, using her photo in the headline of the article, and not mentioning until the sixth paragraph that the Trump administration had no input in the purchase decision. The original headline read: Nikki Haley’s View of New York is Priceless. Her Curtains? $52,701. The modified headline reads: State Department Spent $52,701 on Curtains for Residence of U.N. Envoy.


Washington Post: New York Times backtracks on a tale about some expensive curtains

CNN Money: New York Times amends report that improperly pinned pricey curtains on Nikki Haley

The left
, including the NYT, acknowledges the bias in the original article, but chooses to use more neutral wording in describing the incident. For example, the Washington Post said the Times change is “pretty significant,” while HuffPost’s Yashar Ali called the original story “irresponsible.” By choosing less inflammatory wording the left is trying to move beyond the story in the quickest way possible.


New York Post: The Times’ disgraceful smear of Nikki Haley

Fox News: New York Times admits creating 'unfair impression' about Nikki Haley's $53G curtains that were OK'd by Obama administration

The right doesn’t hold back any punches in calling out the NYT’s bias in the original story by using emotional words like “disgraceful” and quoting Donald Trump Jr. who said “it was Obama’s State Dept. Will you print a correction or just leave it as is because you want it to be true???” Further, the right quotes traditionally left-leaning media’s response as the final nail in the NYT’s coffin.

More fuel for the “fake news” fire

The misleading context of the NYT story provided ammunition to those who perceive the media as hostile towards Trump. Posts about “fake news” began popping up all over Twitter after the story was published. The NYT screwed up and likely hurt their reputation as well as that of the news media overall. Accurate and unbiased journalism is needed now, more than ever, if the American people are going to begin trusting the news media again.



Share this story!