NYT slammed for ‘glam shot’ of Hope Hicks on story about whether she will break the law
Longtime Donald Trump confidante has been subpoenaed by Congress but is considering whether to violate the legal order.
On Saturday, The New York Times published a story wondering if Hicks would comply with the subpoena from the House Judiciary Committee.
“The aide, the former communications director Hope Hicks, who left the White House with an enduring mystique that inspired countless news media profiles, is now a private citizen living in California,” The Times reported. “While serving in the White House, Ms. Hicks never appeared on camera, unless it was at Mr. Trump’s side, and never gave an on-camera interview.”
Both Hicks and her lawyer declined to comment for the article, but The Times included studio photo of Hicks by photographer Tom Brenner that was widely described as a “glamour shot.”
Hope Hicks, one of the best-known but least visible former members of President Trump’s White House staff, is facing an existential question: whether to comply with a congressional subpoena https://t.co/8NXpfQvxQL pic.twitter.com/L7aWVMsIdq
— NYT Politics (@nytpolitics) May 24, 2019
ADVERTISEMENT
There was quickly backlash about both the artwork, the headline, and the editorial decision to run the article.
Here is some of what people were saying:
"Should a federal employee obey a lawful order, or stay loyal to an individual? Here at @nytpolitics, we can't say. It's just all a partisan game! We're not going to make a value judgment! We have great portrait photographers though." https://t.co/5cIjYAZizF
— Sam Wang (@SamWangPhD) May 26, 2019
ADVERTISEMENT
What’s with the pic? https://t.co/iPbLhPAnvM
— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) May 26, 2019
NYT has been acting as Hope Hicks’ publicist for 4 yrs—it’s pathetic https://t.co/HZBcge7xO1
— Eric Boehlert (@EricBoehlert) May 26, 2019
ADVERTISEMENT
“Existential question” lol https://t.co/RaOtv5k4YT
— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) May 26, 2019
It’s a legal question not an existential question https://t.co/Wu6cwvb0Wm
— Molly Jong-Fast (@MollyJongFast) May 26, 2019
ADVERTISEMENT
why are you giving her a glam shoot? https://t.co/KQxuqy4183
— Tim Dickinson (@7im) May 26, 2019
"Blue Steel, Ferrari, Le Tigre? They're the same face! Doesn't anyone notice this?! I feel like I'm taking crazy pills." https://t.co/jaC7yTLXil
— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) May 26, 2019
ADVERTISEMENT
Most existential questions have no clear answer. What is my purpose in life? What happens after I die? Is there a higher power guiding my destiny? Does my dog have a soul?
Other "existential questions," however, are answered by 2 U.S.C. §§ 192 & 194. Compliance is mandatory. https://t.co/QJdGfMxIA9
— Max Kennerly (@MaxKennerly) May 26, 2019
Since when is compliance with a subpoena optional? https://t.co/eQ7sM8GaZa
ADVERTISEMENT— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) May 26, 2019
"Existential" might be overdoing it https://t.co/4bc4m7lTJe
— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) May 26, 2019
Note to reporters: complying with subpoenas aren’t optional. https://t.co/VbeOBwb1vQ
ADVERTISEMENT— Neera Tanden (@neeratanden) May 26, 2019
This is indeed one of the great existential questions. Sartre mentions it in Being and Nothingness, I think. https://t.co/h8G1wKNmyy
— Osita Nwanevu (@OsitaNwanevu) May 26, 2019
Fascinated by the underlying assumptions about power that resulted in this tweet https://t.co/WvHyfFlwjZ
ADVERTISEMENT— Shane, doctor of juris (@shaneferro) May 26, 2019
What the fuck is going on over there, guys? How is it “an existential question” whether to obey a law? How on God’s green earth do you justify this headline? You are making the law seem like a personal, and optional, decision. https://t.co/9ca0hQlKpt
— Ken Tremendous (@KenTremendous) May 26, 2019
It's only "existential" because she looks pretty but tortured… https://t.co/Z6NdmeXGbn
ADVERTISEMENT— James Oliphant (@jamesoliphant) May 26, 2019
Apparently @nytpolitics does not know the definition of "existential."@Dictionarycom, can you help them? https://t.co/u2Rsenh5Qb
— Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) May 26, 2019
Going 90 in a school zone, I’m faced with the existential question of whether to pull over like these cops want me to. https://t.co/jp1GspJ0Uw
— John Moe (@johnmoe) May 26, 2019
That’s Hope Hicks, now chief communications exec for Rupert & Lachlan Murdoch’s Fox Corp https://t.co/Yvz2dcPG3b
— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) May 26, 2019
I feel like in most public-facing corporate jobs "defying valid subpoena" would be a firing offense. https://t.co/DzhiQsbG6o
— Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) May 26, 2019
Why does someone who was involved with promoting racism and hate get treated to glamor shots? https://t.co/ty3aPqMalk
— melissa byrne (@mcbyrne) May 26, 2019
Breaking Banner
Wall Street Journal issues blistering op-ed asking Trump what the point is of a second term
In a blistering op-ed, the Wall Street Journal is asking President Donald Trump what the point of a second term is since he hasn't done anything in his first term.
During his rally in Orlando Tuesday, Trump repeated the same tired lines and same tired policies from 2016. The "Promises Made, Promises Kept" slogan shown over the crowd, yet the supporters didn't understand the irony.
"The most striking fact of his speech was how backward looking it was," the editorial board said. "Every incumbent needs to remind voters of his record, Mr. Trump more than most because the media are so hostile."
Breaking Banner
‘Crosses a line’: New York Times publisher unleashes on Trump for accusing paper of ‘treason’
On Wednesday, New York Times publisher A. G. Sulzberger wrote a blistering editorial in the Wall Street Journal, saying that President Donald Trump's latest attack on his paper "crosses a line."
First it was the "the failing New York Times." Then "fake news." Then "enemy of the people," wrote Sulzberger. "President Trump's escalating attacks on The New York Times have paralleled his broader barrage on American media. He's gone from misrepresenting our business, to assaulting our integrity, to demonizing our journalists with a phrase that’s been used by generations of demagogues. Now the president has escalated his attacks even further, accusing the Times of a crime so grave it is punishable by death.
Breaking Banner
Trump’s Russian arms control negotiator failed to disclose ties to Russian agent’s boyfriend: report
On Wednesday, the Washington Post reported that Andrea Thompson, a State Department official in managing U.S. arms control negotiations with Russia, had a years-long personal friendship with GOP operative Paul Erickson, the boyfriend of admitted Russian agent Maria Butina — and failed to disclose this either to the Senate during her confirmation hearings, or to her superiors at the State Department.
Why is America’s suicide epidemic hitting Trump’s base so hard?
New details revealed in the bizarre story of Jerry Falwell Jr, a pool boy and ‘compromising photographs’
Reparations hearing erupts in applause after Ta-Nehisi Coates gives McConnell an epic lesson on racism
Here are 7 wild, bizarre and pathetic moments from Trump’s ‘campaign launch’
Morning Joe panel cracks up laughing after Trump busted for spotlighting ‘the same black guy’ at rallies
Wall Street Journal issues blistering op-ed asking Trump what the point is of a second term
‘Crosses a line’: New York Times publisher unleashes on Trump for accusing paper of ‘treason’
Trump’s Russian arms control negotiator failed to disclose ties to Russian agent’s boyfriend: report
The NRA hired a CFO who was caught embezzling: report
Russian-American businessman at heart of Trump Tower Moscow project will testify to Congress on Friday
Trump’s Russian arms control negotiator failed to disclose ties to Russian agent’s boyfriend: report
CNN analyst demolishes White House’s latest attempt to stonewall Congress: ‘There is no provision for this immunity’
‘A wild, disgusting, ugly ride’: MSNBC analyst warns 2020 will be ‘desperate’ Trump running to avoid arrest
Entire MSNBC panel unleashes on Judiciary chair demanding he get Mueller to testify ASAP
