The New York Times frames an article on Hope Hicks in a way that displays an utter disregard for the rule of law. How Trumpian of them.
May 26, 2019

I want you to fully imbibe the irony of the above commercial for The New York Times and then look at this tweet from The New York Times' Politics account:

Um, it's an "existential question" to comply with a subpoena now?

Existential questions are questions like "Why do I exist?" and "What is love?" and "In the word 'scent', is it the 's' or 'c' that is silent?".

The word that The New York Times is missing is "compulsory." Complying with subpoenas is not an existential question, IT IS COMPULSORY.

But The New York Times' writers are so deeply invested into normalizing everything about the Trump administration, that they have fully entered the Upside Down and they write stories about people possibly, maybe (but probably not) respecting the rule of law and frame it as something legitimate and heartwrenching for the oh so glamorous Hope Hicks.

UPDATE: In case you were not convinced by the corrosive nature of The New York Times' access journalism, allow me to present yet another exhibit:

Can you help us out?

For 18 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit, but now Facebook is drowning us in an ocean of right wing lies. Please give a one-time or recurring donation, or buy a year's subscription for an ad-free experience. Thank you.


We are currently migrating to Disqus

On May 14, 2022, we started migrating our comments from Insticator back to Disqus. During this transition period, some posts will have Insticator and some Disqus. For more information on the transition, as well as information regarding old C&L accounts, please see this post.

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.