The New York Times on Thursday wrote an incredibly ham-handed hit-piece on UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, suggesting that she had spent over $52,000 on curtains at the official ambassador's residence.

Except, she didn't. The curtains were installed during the Obama administration, while Susan Rice stayed there at a cost of approximately $135,000 per month - over twice what Haley's rent costs, according to the Daily Caller's Kyle Becker.

NYT's Haley hit job is a modern art masterpiece of grotesque storytelling. Under Obama, the U.S. Amb. to U.N. stayed at 42nd floor of Waldorf Towers.



Who lived there? Susan Rice. Approx. listing? $135,000/mo. No one complained then. Odd. (Haley's rent is under half that price.) pic.twitter.com/Uqa9Y3KI8e — Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) September 14, 2018

NYT changes its ⁦@nikkihaley⁩ story in a pretty significant way. Her predecessor actually authorized the $52,000 curtains in her UN residence. https://t.co/iPNAH4PB5o — Josh Dawsey (@jdawsey1) September 14, 2018

The hit-piece was so egregious that the New York Times issued a paragraph-long retraction at the top of the article, which reads:

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.

Even liberal pundits jumped on the Times for their hit piece, with CNN's Jake Tapper taking them to town in a six-part tweetstorm:

1/ A word on the false meme bopping around about @nikkihaley’s $52,701 curtains. NYT story notes in 6th paragraph, “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.” — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) September 14, 2018

2/ Elaborating, a source at the US Mission to the UN tells CNN: “It was decided, well before the election in 2016, that the US Ambassador’s residence would move from the Waldorf to its new location. The new location was unfurnished/unfinished.... — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) September 14, 2018

3/ The source continues: “In June of 2016 it was decided that the State Department's Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations would outfit the new residence (this is standard operating procedure for Ambassadors' residences across the globe.)... — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) September 14, 2018

4/ ”In July of 2016 the first site visit was complete and the designer from OBO chose and ordered the curtains shortly thereafter (summer 2016). Also SOP OBO does not personalize residences to individual Ambassador's tastes.... — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) September 14, 2018

5/ So this was done under @BarackObama and @SamanthaJPower?



“This isn't about blaming Obama/Power,” the source says. “It's SOP for outfitting Ambassadors' Residences. The outfitting of the USUN residence just happened to start in 2016... — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) September 14, 2018

6/ Bottom line, per source: “Amb. Haley had no choice in the location of the residence or what curtains were picked out that summer.”



-fin- — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) September 14, 2018

Which brings us to the Washington Post's Paul Farhi - who did battle with the Times while trying to cover their egregious error.

Reached by phone on Friday, the reporter of the Times story, Gardiner Harris, hung up without comment. He did not respond to follow-up messages. Times editor Dean Baquet said in a brief interview that he preferred to let the editor’s note correcting the story do the talking. He added, “The main lesson here is, if we get it wrong, we correct it. We own up to it.” -WaPo

The Post notes that while everything in the story is true; Haley lives in a 6,000 square-foot apartment on First Avenue, and enojys said curtains, "all of that distorts the actual timing and context of Drape-gate," adding "readers who merely scanned the headline and photo thinking it was another Trump administration expense-account scandal might have missed several important pieces of information in the body of the story."

Farhi ends with perhaps the most pertinent question in the whole debate; "Why did the State Department, under any administration, deem it necessary to drop more than $50,000 on curtains?"