New York Times Regrets "Unfair" Implication of Nikki Haley in Article

Was it really all the news that was fit to print? The New York Times added an editors’ note to a Thursday story about how the State Department had spent $52,701 for curtains at the residence of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley. Only it turns out those curtains were ordered under the Obama Administration, a point buried deep in the article.

The Times’ note said that a photo of Haley should not have been included with the story, which was headlined “Nikki Haley’s View of New York is Priceless. Her Curtains? $52,701.” The piece received considerable blowback, according to The Hill.

The headline was later changed to read “State Department Spent $52,701 on Curtains for Nikki Haley’s Residence,” but the original headline remains on a story the paper tweeted.

Six graphs in before they tell you Obama’s Administration ordered the damn curtains. A better headline would be, “Haley Fails To Cancel Obama Era Curtain Order.”https://t.co/OFj49FfmdA

— Did you… read the article? (@bungarsargon) September 14, 2018

According to The Hill, the editors’ note now attached to the story said the article and headline “created an unfair impression” about those responsible for the “purchase in question.”

“An earlier version of this article and headline created an unfair impression about who was responsible for the purchase in question,” reads the statement, according to The Hill. “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 editor’s note attached to the New York Times’s Nikki Haley-curtain misfire is a nice example of how to come clean on a mistake: https://t.co/hFti2ItlTe pic.twitter.com/IFHeQ2hAqL

— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) September 14, 2018

It goes on to say, “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.”