As I wrote Monday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY-14) and liberal journalist Soledad O’Brien went all “Mean Girls” on an article the New York Times did about former White House comms director Hope Hicks.

Specifically, they took issue with two things: How the article presented Hicks’s subpoena compliance as optional rather than mandatory, and the “glamour shot” (their words) photo the paper used of her.

To recap, here’s the photo:

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

Here’s what they said:

This is a good example of bias in the @nytimes: a picture of a person who is considering not complying with a subpoena is basically a glam shot, and it’s framed as a thoughtful, perfectly equal choice. https://t.co/qRHT31AsMg

— Soledad O'Brien (@soledadobrien) May 26, 2019

—

Exactly.
So let’s ask ourselves—why was this fairly useless article (read it and you’ll agree) about Hope Hicks, given the glamour girl treatment?
What could it be?
Why would someone want to write a puff piece about her?
Framed—not from a legal perspective—but from her pov?
Hmm. https://t.co/U3lmnx2Kez

— Soledad O'Brien (@soledadobrien) May 26, 2019

—

Yup. Where’s the “no angel” take now?

In the immediate aftermath of shootings, media routinely post menacing photos of people-of-color victims + dredge up any questionable thing they’d ever done.

But when Hope Hicks considers not complying w a subpoena, it’s glamour shot time. https://t.co/ACnvXlKF7Q

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) May 26, 2019

—

What gets me is news breaks that this woman is weighing committing a crime before Congress &it’s getting framed by the NYT as some Lifetime drama called “Hope’s Choice.”

This is a fmr admin official considering participating in a coverup led by the President.

Treat her equally. https://t.co/XcNbSuU4QB

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) May 26, 2019

I wrote in my Monday piece that if this gang of clueless wonders had kept their criticisms of the article to how the paper presented Hicks’s subpoena compliance as a choice, that would have been a fair critique. But they also went after the picture the paper used. Presumably the paper should have used one that showed Hicks, who has classically beautiful features – and who has probably never taken a bad photo, in a menacing light?

As it turns out, there was no conspiracy on the photo. No “glamour shot” was presented to the paper for use by Hicks’s publicist, nor was the photo itself a “glamour shot.” Freelance and sometimes New York Times photographer Tom Brenner, who took the photo in question, explained the history of it on Twitter yesterday afternoon (hat tip: Twitchy):

From the "Glamour Shoot" with Hope Hicks. Original frames from a Roosevelt Room meeting with the President and state/local officials regarding school safety on 2/22/18. One of the last images of Hope as an official before her resignation not long after. pic.twitter.com/vVSFpJJuYC

— Tom Brenner (@tombrennerphoto) May 28, 2019

Also to further clarify the situation, I was also unaware that Ms. Hicks would enter the room to hear this meeting in person. Officials are free to step into meetings, and at this instance she was standing quietly beside the door for only a few minutes.

— Tom Brenner (@tombrennerphoto) May 28, 2019

Hysterically enough, two days after she complained on Twitter about the Hicks photo, AOC ranted about how people will use women’s looks in order to … belittle and silence them.

Can’t make this stuff up.

———————
—Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter.–