The New York Times is under fire over a piece in which it framed a decision over whether to comply with a Congressional subpoena as an “existential question.”

In the story, Times White House correspondent Maggie Haberman wrote that former White House communications director Hope Hicks “is facing an existential question: whether to comply with a congressional subpoena in the coming weeks.”

The framing faced criticism from many including several members of Congress. Notably, Rep.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) weighed in via Twitter.

“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,'” Ocasio-Cortez wrote. “This is a fmr admin official considering participating in a coverup led by the President. Treat her equally.”

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

A host of others criticized the story as well. Here’s a sampling of the reaction from politicians, journalists, and other observers:

I’m with everyone else. The word “existential” has no business there. It’s just wrong. The glamour photography is absurdly out of place. And the article itself presents obeying the law as almost a lifestyle choice. https://t.co/Si6wEM38g3

— Jay Rosen (@jayrosen_nyu) May 26, 2019

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

Perhaps Hope Hicks can assert existential privilege… https://t.co/4qb0Vd5Deo

— Julia Macfarlane (@juliamacfarlane) May 26, 2019

Most existential questions have no clear answer. What is my purpose in life? What happens after I die? Is there a higher power guiding my destiny? Does my dog have a soul?

Other “existential questions,” however, are answered by 2 U.S.C. §§ 192 & 194. Compliance is mandatory. https://t.co/QJdGfMxIA9

— Max Kennerly (@MaxKennerly) May 26, 2019

It’s a subpoena, not an invitation.

Complying with a Congressional subpoena is not an “existential question”, it’s the law. https://t.co/AYM8ykD7mc

— Abigail Spanberger (@SpanbergerVA07) May 26, 2019

I’m sorry, I can’t let this go. It is not an “existential question.” It’s a legal question, and it has one answer: yes of fucking course you have to comply with congressional subpoenas, because otherwise, what’s the fucking point of a congressional subpoena? https://t.co/9ca0hQlKpt

— Ken Tremendous (@KenTremendous) May 26, 2019

It’s a legal question not an existential question https://t.co/Wu6cwvb0Wm

— Molly Jong-Fast (@MollyJongFast) May 26, 2019

Everyone should know complying with subpoenas aren’t optional, it’s the law.

It’s that simple! https://t.co/XBq2C21gDP

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) May 26, 2019

Note to reporters: complying with subpoenas aren’t optional. https://t.co/VbeOBwb1vQ

— Neera Tanden (@neeratanden) May 26, 2019

It’s not really existential.

You either care about the rule of law or you don’t. https://t.co/IIBWZSIkVE

— Julie DiCaro (@JulieDiCaro) May 27, 2019

Since when is compliance with a subpoena optional? https://t.co/eQ7sM8GaZa

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) May 26, 2019

[featured photo via Getty Images]

from Mediaite http://bit.ly/2W89ZZS