It’s good when newsrooms own up to their mistakes, but this episode amounts to far more than a careless reporting error. Where there should be an apology is instead an attempt to whitewash just how badly the paper failed in its most basic duties as a news organization. There is no “owning up” here from the Times.

The original report came under fire Friday as critics called attention to its many glaring flaws, including that its author did nothing to investigate the explanation by the ambassador’s office that she was in no way responsible for the curtains or the selection of her pricey residence. The ambassador’s denial of involvement was reported by none other than the Times. That the paper failed to investigate the explanation it reported is inexcusable.

The story also suggested incorrectly that the Trump administration called for the ambassador’s residence to be moved from the Waldorf Astoria in Manhattan to an apartment closer to the delegation’s offices. It wasn’t. As noted here, the Obama administration decided in 2015 to abandon suite 42-A after the sale of the Towers to Chinese investors raised security concerns. This White House’s decision was heavily covered at the time.

Lastly, it was not lost on critics that the report’s only on-the-record sources all worked for the previous administration, including former Director of Global Engagement for the Obama White House Brett Bruen and former Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy.

Bruen tried to salvage the story Friday afternoon by sharing a screengrab on social media showing the State Department’s Office of Acquisitions awarded a $29,900 contract for the curtains in 2017 (the other $22,801 went to installing motors and mounting hardware).

Conveniently omitted from his effort to save face is any mention of the fact that the Office of Acquisition Management approved the $29,000 contract last year, according to a sole source justification letter dated Nov. 15, 2016.

I provided Times spokespersons with copies of this letter Friday afternoon and asked whether they were aware of its existence. A few hours later, the paper amended its story to include an editor’s note. But even with the addition of a note, the report is still deeply flawed.

First, former Obama officials Bruen and Kennedy are still quoted in the story as authorities on the purchase, including when the latter obnoxiously said, “All [Haley has] got is a part-time maid, and the ability to open and close the curtains quickly is important.” Second, the report still links the curtains to HUD Secretary Ben Carson, whose office was caught trying to purchase a $31,000 dining room set. Lastly, the story still makes no mention of who served as the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. at the time of the purchase (it was Samantha Power). This final point is particularly curious considering the original article was so eager to put a name to the expenditures.

All of this is to say: The editor’s note is deeply disingenuous. It’s absurd to assert that the story “should not have focused on Ms. Haley” when it’s clear the report’s original intent all along was to expand the circle of big spenders in the Trump administration to include Haley. The note is especially absurd considering the story still contains elements of the author’s original attempt to blame the ambassador for things decided by her predecessors.

The Times didn’t “review” and update the story because it uncovered new and relevant information. The insincere note was added only because the paper’s attempted hit job was exceptionally egregious.

The Times’ readers and Ambassador Haley deserve better than this.