I am a defender of the press, believing that as imperfect and yes – even biased as the media can be, we do not label them “the enemy,” in order to protect some would-be despot, and we don’t put a gag on them.
That being said, what The New York Times has attempted to do to United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley is inexcusable.
For some reason – and this got past the editors of the news organization – they ran a story on Friday that was disingenuously titled, “Nikki Haley’s View of New York Is Priceless. Her Curtains? $52,701.”
It sounds seriously screwed up, right? I mean, who pays nearly $53,000 for curtains?
The short answer to that question: The Obama administration.
That’s right. The New York Times has attempted to frame this extravagant purchase for Ambassador Haley’s New York residence as her hubris, rather than a holdover from the Obama administration.
Conspicuously absent from the title:
Although the installation was paid for during Haley’s tenure as ambassador, a spokesman told the Times that plans for the purchase were initially made during the Obama administration in 2016.
Patrick Kennedy, a top State Department official under the Obama administration, defended the purchase of the curtains to the Times and noted that Haley only has one part-time staffer at her residence.
“All she’s got is a part-time maid, and the ability to open and close the curtains quickly is important,” Kennedy told the newspaper.
At least one Obama staffer didn’t bother to get the story straight with Kennedy, and went off on a tangent, disregarding the fact that it was during his boss’ tenure that the purchase was arranged.
“How can you, on the one hand, tell diplomats that basic needs cannot be met and, on the other hand, spend more than $50,000 on a customized curtain system for the ambassador to the U.N.?” Brett Bruen, an Obama White House aide, asked in the Times report.
Again, ask your former boss.
So yes, when The New York Times writes a story like this, conveniently buries the pertinent facts, knowing we’re now in a society of headline readers, anxious for red meat, it’s hard not to side against them.
This was dishonest, and it appeals only to the lower intellects that can’t get past the headlines before jumping to their conclusions.
Which brings us to our next low info headline reader…David Hogg.
Hogg is the Parkland High School shooting survivor-turned anti-gun activist and media slag.
Desperate in his attempts to be seen and heard, charging at the current administration because it gets him Twitter “likes,” he did exactly what the NYT intended to happen – blamed Haley for the extravagance.
“Dear Nikki Haley, There are starving children in America every day and you have the audacity to misappropriate thousands of tax dollars for your own lavish lifestyle,” Hogg wrote on Twitter. “Resign immediately sincerely, America.”
Dear David, insolent little welps should be seen and not heard, at least until they’re over 25 and they’ve had to pay their own bills for a while. Sincerely, the world.
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
— David Hogg (@davidhogg111) September 14, 2018
To be fair, the disrespectful little snot-nose is only doing what some who are older, more mature, and should know better are doing. He’s not alone.
Conservative writer, Ben Shapiro, stepped up and called Hogg on his blind rush to judgment.
You are perpetuating a lie the Times article itself debunks https://t.co/t26hMLjn0E
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) September 14, 2018
That’s right. Within the body of the article, the writer of the slam piece disputes their own title.
You’ll only know that if you read it, however.
This is really such a low, dishonest bit of scam journalism. I can’t defend it, and I won’t.
Hogg, on the other hand, is a parody of the kind of arrogance you will see from those touting this story.
He’s the kind of sucker the writer was looking for.