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

You may have seen that New York Times report today about pricey curtains at U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley‘s residence. You may have also seen the backlash to the report, which noted the plans for the curtains were made under the Obama administration.

The original headline read “Nikki Haley’s View of New York is Priceless. Her Curtains? $52,701.” The fact that it was a decision from the previous administration appeared in the fourth paragraph of the report.

Of course this got a lot of blowback on social media, and CNN’s Oliver Darcy reported that the Times would be “reviewing” the report. As Mediaite’s own Joseph Wulfsohn wrote:

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.

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.

[photo via Getty Images]