Hope Hicks at the White House, March 2018. The former Trump aide is unlikely to honor a congressional subpoena next month. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
May 27, 2019
The contrast between media coverage of two women, Hope Hicks and Chelsea Manning, who are each refusing to cooperate with federal investigations did not go unnoticed on Memorial Day Weekend.
"Give Chelsea Manning the glamour shot and charitable take she deserves."
--Bob Bland
On Thursday evening, The New York Times unveiled an article about Hope Hicks, former aide to President Donald Trump, and what the paper portrayed in a tweet as an "existential crisis" for the former White House staffer: her likely refusal to comply with a congressional subpoena to appear before the House Judiciary Committee on June 19.
\u201cHope Hicks, one of the best-known but least visible former members of President Trump\u2019s White House staff, is facing an existential question: whether to comply with a congressional subpoena https://t.co/8NXpfQvxQL\u201d— NYT Politics (@NYT Politics) 1558707664
The article was derided as being too friendly to Hicks as opposed to holding the former Trump aide to account for blatantly breaking the law. House Democrats are increasingly frustrated with Trump and his allies flouting of congressional oversight.
PerThinkProgress:
Hicks, who worked for President Donald Trump during his campaign and the first two years of his presidency, is reportedly considering becoming the latest ex-Trump official to defy a subpoena--which is supposed to be illegal.
To journalist Soledad O'Brien, the photo choice and tone of the Times piece reflected "bias."
"A picture of a person who is considering not complying with a subpoena is basically a glam shot," O'Brien said on Twitter, "and it's framed as a thoughtful, perfectly equal choice.
Critics pointed to the lack of glossy profiles and complimentary coverage for another woman who refused a subpoena: Army veteran Chelsea Manning. Manning has been held in federal custody for 75 of the past 82 days, with a brief seven day interlude.
"Oddly, the NYT didn't frame Chelsea Manning's refusal to testify against Assange in the same way," saidjournalist Dan Gilmor.
The coverage contrast was pointed to by a number of journalists and activists, many of whom demanded that the paper treat Manning with the same respect as Hicks.
Journalist Marcy Wheeler used her Twitter account to make the contrast clear, tweeting pictures of the relative coverage for each woman.
\u201cCompare and contrast NYT's treatment of two different famous women facing subpoena.\u201d— emptywheel (@emptywheel) 1558886837
"Chelsea Manning doesn't get this treatment," said comedian Ryan Houlihan.
Documentarian and investigative journalist Lindsay Beyerstein, in a series of tweets, laid out the difference between the two women's actions.
"Regardless of how you feel about Chelsea Manning's stance, it comes at real cost to her," Beyerstein said. "And she has ideological reasons for not complying. Hope Hicks just doesn't feel like it."
Women's March co-president Bob Bland called for Manning to be given, at minimum, at least the respect Hicks got from the Times.
"If this is how The New York Times is covering government subpoenas now, please retract and give Chelsea Manning the glamour shot and charitable take she deserves," tweeted Bland. "After all--she's the one actually protecting democracy instead of trying to dismantle it for profit!"
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The contrast between media coverage of two women, Hope Hicks and Chelsea Manning, who are each refusing to cooperate with federal investigations did not go unnoticed on Memorial Day Weekend.
"Give Chelsea Manning the glamour shot and charitable take she deserves."
--Bob Bland
On Thursday evening, The New York Times unveiled an article about Hope Hicks, former aide to President Donald Trump, and what the paper portrayed in a tweet as an "existential crisis" for the former White House staffer: her likely refusal to comply with a congressional subpoena to appear before the House Judiciary Committee on June 19.
\u201cHope Hicks, one of the best-known but least visible former members of President Trump\u2019s White House staff, is facing an existential question: whether to comply with a congressional subpoena https://t.co/8NXpfQvxQL\u201d— NYT Politics (@NYT Politics) 1558707664
The article was derided as being too friendly to Hicks as opposed to holding the former Trump aide to account for blatantly breaking the law. House Democrats are increasingly frustrated with Trump and his allies flouting of congressional oversight.
PerThinkProgress:
Hicks, who worked for President Donald Trump during his campaign and the first two years of his presidency, is reportedly considering becoming the latest ex-Trump official to defy a subpoena--which is supposed to be illegal.
To journalist Soledad O'Brien, the photo choice and tone of the Times piece reflected "bias."
"A picture of a person who is considering not complying with a subpoena is basically a glam shot," O'Brien said on Twitter, "and it's framed as a thoughtful, perfectly equal choice.
Critics pointed to the lack of glossy profiles and complimentary coverage for another woman who refused a subpoena: Army veteran Chelsea Manning. Manning has been held in federal custody for 75 of the past 82 days, with a brief seven day interlude.
"Oddly, the NYT didn't frame Chelsea Manning's refusal to testify against Assange in the same way," saidjournalist Dan Gilmor.
The coverage contrast was pointed to by a number of journalists and activists, many of whom demanded that the paper treat Manning with the same respect as Hicks.
Journalist Marcy Wheeler used her Twitter account to make the contrast clear, tweeting pictures of the relative coverage for each woman.
\u201cCompare and contrast NYT's treatment of two different famous women facing subpoena.\u201d— emptywheel (@emptywheel) 1558886837
"Chelsea Manning doesn't get this treatment," said comedian Ryan Houlihan.
Documentarian and investigative journalist Lindsay Beyerstein, in a series of tweets, laid out the difference between the two women's actions.
"Regardless of how you feel about Chelsea Manning's stance, it comes at real cost to her," Beyerstein said. "And she has ideological reasons for not complying. Hope Hicks just doesn't feel like it."
Women's March co-president Bob Bland called for Manning to be given, at minimum, at least the respect Hicks got from the Times.
"If this is how The New York Times is covering government subpoenas now, please retract and give Chelsea Manning the glamour shot and charitable take she deserves," tweeted Bland. "After all--she's the one actually protecting democracy instead of trying to dismantle it for profit!"
The contrast between media coverage of two women, Hope Hicks and Chelsea Manning, who are each refusing to cooperate with federal investigations did not go unnoticed on Memorial Day Weekend.
"Give Chelsea Manning the glamour shot and charitable take she deserves."
--Bob Bland
On Thursday evening, The New York Times unveiled an article about Hope Hicks, former aide to President Donald Trump, and what the paper portrayed in a tweet as an "existential crisis" for the former White House staffer: her likely refusal to comply with a congressional subpoena to appear before the House Judiciary Committee on June 19.
\u201cHope Hicks, one of the best-known but least visible former members of President Trump\u2019s White House staff, is facing an existential question: whether to comply with a congressional subpoena https://t.co/8NXpfQvxQL\u201d— NYT Politics (@NYT Politics) 1558707664
The article was derided as being too friendly to Hicks as opposed to holding the former Trump aide to account for blatantly breaking the law. House Democrats are increasingly frustrated with Trump and his allies flouting of congressional oversight.
PerThinkProgress:
Hicks, who worked for President Donald Trump during his campaign and the first two years of his presidency, is reportedly considering becoming the latest ex-Trump official to defy a subpoena--which is supposed to be illegal.
To journalist Soledad O'Brien, the photo choice and tone of the Times piece reflected "bias."
"A picture of a person who is considering not complying with a subpoena is basically a glam shot," O'Brien said on Twitter, "and it's framed as a thoughtful, perfectly equal choice.
Critics pointed to the lack of glossy profiles and complimentary coverage for another woman who refused a subpoena: Army veteran Chelsea Manning. Manning has been held in federal custody for 75 of the past 82 days, with a brief seven day interlude.
"Oddly, the NYT didn't frame Chelsea Manning's refusal to testify against Assange in the same way," saidjournalist Dan Gilmor.
The coverage contrast was pointed to by a number of journalists and activists, many of whom demanded that the paper treat Manning with the same respect as Hicks.
Journalist Marcy Wheeler used her Twitter account to make the contrast clear, tweeting pictures of the relative coverage for each woman.
\u201cCompare and contrast NYT's treatment of two different famous women facing subpoena.\u201d— emptywheel (@emptywheel) 1558886837
"Chelsea Manning doesn't get this treatment," said comedian Ryan Houlihan.
Documentarian and investigative journalist Lindsay Beyerstein, in a series of tweets, laid out the difference between the two women's actions.
"Regardless of how you feel about Chelsea Manning's stance, it comes at real cost to her," Beyerstein said. "And she has ideological reasons for not complying. Hope Hicks just doesn't feel like it."
Women's March co-president Bob Bland called for Manning to be given, at minimum, at least the respect Hicks got from the Times.
"If this is how The New York Times is covering government subpoenas now, please retract and give Chelsea Manning the glamour shot and charitable take she deserves," tweeted Bland. "After all--she's the one actually protecting democracy instead of trying to dismantle it for profit!"
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.