NYT Reader CenterVerified account

Hicks faces a choice of JAIL or testifying. "resist" suggests that failing to testifying is somehow noble.

I love the NYT but this tweet is CYA rather than admit the story was lame. "Existential" choice? No. Comply with a subpoena or face consequences. It's called the law. Someone named Chelsea Manning might want to weigh in.

This just happened. It was an accident in some ways. It means nothing. But Maggie Haberman is a genius. Got it.

Faces a choice, yes. Faces an *existential* choice--as if it were some sort of whim based on how she felt that day--no. The reporting may have been rigorous (although I've seen convincing evidence otherwise) but it was clearly couched in the most flattering way possible.

The overwhelming complaint I saw wasnt about a photo at all, it was about the individual missing from her story... Jared Kushner. Then after learning about her ties to his law firm, indicates to me that she (as well as NYT) has a conflict of reporting interest.

The photo did not bother me. The “existential choice” characterization did. I would go to jail if I chose to ignore a congressional subpoena.

This article has nothing that is news in it. Of course Trump doesn’t want her to testify. She doesn’t want to testify. Is she willing to break the law? Probably. Will she be held accountable? That would be news.

As a fmr natl jnlist, I find your response and the NYT choice of both photo and article to be simply pathetic. Someone chose the photo; that person should be on notice today. Someone edited the article and saw the spin. Put s/he on notice. Both are beneath the NYT--or should be.

@emptywheel tore a whole in your "reporting was rigorous" that you could drive a truck through. I am sure you won't read it as you are more concerned with defending your position than why we (mostly NYT fans) feel betrayed.