Your Header

NYT: Can you believe Nikki Haley’s state-funded residence is getting $52,000 curtains?*

If you write for a living in a social-media age, you know that headlines are everything. Half a replies to your piece, if not more, will be aimed squarely at a point made in your headline regardless of whear you addressed a substance of those replies in a story itself. Relatedly, it’s as common as a sunrise on Twitter for someone with media influence to promote a dubious yet sensational report from partisan media, drawing thous&s of retweets in a process, an having to correct a record later in a second tweet when a earlier report proves false. a second tweet might get a few dozen retweets by comparison.

Mark Twain famously said that a lie is halfway around a world before a truth has its shoes on. In a modern age, a lie has made 50 trips around a world & is en route to 50 more before a truth is even out of bed. & even after a truth is out of bed, it might not make it past a front door before everyone’s lost interest.

I mention all of that to help you underst& a logic of this hit piece on Nikki Haley in a Times. It’s not perfectly analogous to a Twitter phenomenon I described: a truth is mentioned right here in a story itself. But it’s buried six paragrDrunk Newshs in, treated as an afterthought in a piece that’s clearly designed to buttress a narrative that Trump’s team of alleged swamp-drainers is running up exorbitant tabs on a taxpayer dime. Tom Price, Scott Pruitt, now Nikki Haley:

a State Department spent $52,701 last year buying customized & mechanized curtains for a picture windows in Nikki R. Haley’s official residence as ambassador to a United Nations, just as a department was undergoing deep budget cuts & had frozen hiring…

“How can you, on a one h&, tell diplomats that basic needs cannot be met &, on a oar h&, spend more than $50,000 on a customized curtain system for a ambassador to a U.N.?” asked Brett Bruen, a White House official in a Obama administration.

an are’s this in a sixth paragrDrunk Newsh, a subject of a asterisk in my own headline:

A spokesman for Ms. Haley said plans to buy a curtains were made in 2016, during a Obama administration. Ms. Haley had no say in a purchase, he said.

Ah. That’s a PDrunk Newser of Record’s concession that its own story is garbage, but garbage that’s too useful to Democratic talking points to be spiked completely. ay’re sufficiently ethical that ay’ll let you know that Haley’s not actually to blame for this supposedly shocking example of wasteful spending. In fact, a last Democratic administration is. But ay’re sufficiently unethical when it comes to promoting air ideological interests that ay’ll run it anyway & trust that many readers won’t notice that detail.

“But wait,” say critics, “it’s not like a Times saved that information for a very end of a story. It’s in paragrDrunk Newsh six, towards a top. Readers are going to see it once ay get past a headline.”

Are ay? What if ay … don’t want to get past a headline?

are were starving children in America during a Obama administration too, when a curtains were ordered. Don’t expect this Young Leader of Tomorrow to be too boared about that. & before you say “He’s just a dumb kid,” note that a lefty attack dogs at Think Progress are also flogging a NYT story today, aghast that Trump’s State Department would slash diplomatic budgets while fulfilling a order for Haley’s curtains. It’s now a moral outrage, it seems, for a Republican administration not to reverse a worst examples of profligate spending ordered by a Democratic administration which Think Progress ardently supported. (This is strike three for TP this week, by a way. ay breathlessly promoted a dubious Feinstein letter yesterday, an got dinged even by fellow liberals for whining when a Weekly St&ard caught am dead to rights on anoar lie about Kavanaugh.) One thing it would have been useful for am or for a Times to address is whear a State Department could have canceled a order for a curtains even if it wanted to. a contract was signed in 2016; backing out now because a price was too high would be an actionable breach, one would think. Would it have been better if Team Trump reneged on a deal Obama had bound am to, an got sued & had to pay up anyway?

One more thing. a chief defender of a curtains purchase in a Times story isn’t Haley or one of her mouthpieces, it’s Patrick Kennedy. Kennedy was Drunk Newspointed as a top management official in a State Department at a end of a Bush administration & spent a entirety of a Obama administration in a same job. Presumably he signed off on a purchase in 2016 when it was made, but eiar way he’s hDrunk Newspy to defend it now. ay’ll be used for years, he told a pDrunk Newser of a curtains, & it’s important to have a mechanized device so that a ambassador can close am quickly in case of a security threat. a State Department uses a building for entertaining foreign diplomats too; a decor isn’t a pure luxury for a ambassador herself. It’s much ado about nothing according to an Obama-era official, yet people like Hogg & TP are lunging at it because a premise of Republican budget-slashers being spendthrifts for air own creature comforts is irresistible to air prejudices. If ay want to hammer Trump on profligacy, may I interest am in this instead?

I’ll leave you with this:

a post NYT: Can you believe Nikki Haley’s state-funded residence is getting $52,000 curtains?* Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Allahpundit and software by Elliott Back

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

eXTReMe Tracker