For example, when this article about Hope Hicks appears in front of you.
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 in the coming weeks.
And of course it’s by Maggie Haberman, because who else would it be by? And of course there’s a photo of Hicks that really captures her ethical (note: not existential, as Maggie Haberman seems unclear on what words mean) dilemma:
Let’s be really clear here – Hope Hicks faces an ethical question and it is “Shall I follow the law or not?” Hope Hicks is being asked to do her legal duty by obeying a subpoena and her ethical duty to support a system of the rule of law. If she is having a hard time weighing these options, it doesn’t say much good about her.
Has Haberman leveraged that insider access she’s got to get some new insight into whether Hicks will do the right thing, or spit on the law like most who’ve been associated with Trump?
Ms. Hicks declined to comment, as did her lawyer.
That’s some great journalism there, Mags. And some great editorial choices, New York Times.
Meanwhile I hope in the future we can look forward to glamour shots of drug kingpins who are wrestling with existential questions like “Should I go to prison like I was sentenced to?”