NY Times intentionally misleads readers into thinking Trump-admin official bought $52K curtains

And further on the topic of how the Mainstream Media lies and misleads Americans, constantly:

Last Friday the New York Times ran a front-page story headlined

Nikki Haley’s View of New York Is Priceless.  Her Curtains? $52,701

As everyone probably knows, Haley is our ambassador to the U.N. and was appointed by Trump. The ambassador has an "official residence" in NYC, and the story was about that residence getting an astonishingly expensive set of curtains.  Next to the story was a pic of Haley--who, again, was appointed by Trump.

SO...the reader was given the impression--totally intentionally--that the presumably luxury-loving Trump (builder of the tower with his name) had okayed his ambassador buying $52,000 curtains at government expense.  Outrageous!  Scandalous!  Impeach him!

The title and pic were effective enough to prompt Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu to call for “an oversight hearing on State Department spending on Nikki Haley and her deputy.”

Left-wing teenage jerk David Hogg was also fooled by the headline, writing a tweet condemning Haley for having the “audacity to misappropriate thousands of tax dollars for your own lavish lifestyle” while there are children starving in America.  He ended by demanding she “Resign immediately.”


But the sixth 'graf of the article itself--which almost no one ever reads (and which presumably Rep Lieu and young idiot Hogg didn't)--noted that the window treatments were NOT ordered by Haley but by... the Obama administration.

That was obviously before Haley was named ambassador.  And before Trump was even elected.

So the editors and headline writers at the Times knew--from the content of their own damn story--that Haley had nothing at all to do with the curtains.  But they ran the headline specifically noting "Haley's curtains," and the huge cost, anyway.

Again, way down in the article, the author notes that this happened before Trump was elected.  But the Times editors also know that only a tiny fraction of readers read that far down in most stories.

In other words, the misleading headline and pic were absolutely intentional.

Anything and everything to peel another few thousand voters away from Trump, eh?

After a ton of criticism, on Friday afternoon the article was changed and Times’ editors put a note at the top saying "An earlier version of this article and headline created an unfair impression about who was responsible for the purchase in question. While Nikki 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."  But the editors also know that only about one percent of readers who read the original story ever see the correction.

Liars and propaganists, top to bottom.