Hope Hicks is very pretty. So pretty, in fact, that as a 17 year-old model, she graced the cover of a Gossip Girl spinoff novel, providing the public further evidence that not only is she very pretty, but unless she got plastic surgery done as a very young teenager, she is very pretty naturally. That she has neither lip fillers nor a nose job would put her in just 1% of all of Hollywood.
So of course, people are very jealous of her. This weekend it showed.
Maggie Haberman at the New York Times wrote a piece last week about Hicks’ compliance (or lack thereof) with a congressional subpoena. The tweet sharing the article perhaps unwisely framed this as an “existential dilemma” rather than one about complying with the law. But that’s not what had everyone’s panties in a knot.
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
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
Murdered innocent black kids don’t get treated this nicely by the media. They’re condemned.
Hope Hicks gets a glamour shot and NYT article describing her contemplating crime as a manic pixie dream girl problem. https://t.co/rfJYfaaPK1
— Wagatwe Wanjuki ?? (@wagatwe) May 26, 2019
I totally get Hope Hicks’ dilemma. Right now I’m facing the existential question “should I rob a bank?”
I’m ready for my glam shot now if I could just get this fake eyelash glue right dagnabbit https://t.co/cUiJaL4ezM
— Imani Gandy (@AngryBlackLady) May 26, 2019
Very glam mug shot https://t.co/tGTFDST2ti
— Ellen Barkin (@EllenBarkin) May 26, 2019
And my personal favorite, “Glam Shots for One, Not for the Other: Different Media Standard for Hope Hicks and Chelsea Manning Draws Backlash”:
“Oddly, the NYT didn’t frame Chelsea Manning’s refusal to testify against Assange in the same way.”https://t.co/JN87j3BVcw
— Common Dreams (@commondreams) May 27, 2019
Compare and contrast NYT’s treatment of two different famous women facing subpoena. pic.twitter.com/YQTXUfvBLE
— emptywheel (@emptywheel) May 26, 2019
There’s just one problem. (Well, aside from the seething jealousy from women I’m guessing would consider themselves feminists.) This isn’t a “glam” shot. It wasn’t even posed. It was one of the last images shot by the New York Times before Hicks officially resigned, and a candid one during a meeting at that. Don’t take my word for it — just listen to the photographer who shot the picture.
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
I hate to break it to you, but Hope Hicks was just a rare bird in the swamp who was both naturally beautiful and styled herself well. You too can balayage your hair, contour your face, and wear this season’s Stuart Weitzman Highland boots. Don’t get jealous! Just hit the gym, the salon, and maybe Bendel’s. Nothing is stopping you, except your jealousy.
Hope Hicks rocks $798 Stuart Weitzman boots at World Economic Forum https://t.co/L5LrkxAe9C
— AOL Lifestyle (@AOLLifestyle) January 26, 2018
