,
7 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
The NYT is being criticized for its gentle portrait of Hope Hicks facing an existential crisis on complying with a congressional subpoena. While working on a profile of Lachlan Murdoch recently, I came across a comment from Murdoch that might explain the NYT's kindness to Hicks.
At a conference in November, Lachlan Murdoch was asked about hiring Hope Hicks as Fox Corp.'s comms chief. Murdoch said that as part of his due diligence, an advisor contacted "many people" at the NYT to ask about Hicks, and they "universally said she was a fantastic choice."
Murdoch was speaking at the DealBook conference in 2018: "I had an advisor of mine call people she would have worked with and universally, and I should mention that many people from the New York Times, universally said she was a fantastic choice."
Murdoch did not say who the "many people at the New York Times" were, but it would seem he was referring to reporters who would have been in touch with Hicks while she was a top communications adviser to President Trump. It would seem they liked her quite a bit.
Who at the New York Times vouched for Hicks when she was up for the Fox job? Assuming it was a reporter/s, what does that say about their relationship with Hicks and the paper's coverage of Hicks? Paging @jayrosen_nyu @jackshafer @Sulliview ;)
Fwiw Vanity Fair reported that Fox's hiring of Hicks involved reaching out to White House reporters and "inquiring about what she was like to work with and whether she was strategic." VF didn't say which publications the White House reporters worked for. vanityfair.com/news/2019/01/h… 
My profile of Lachlan Murdoch did not include his comments on Hicks and the NYT; much of what you learn when reporting a story doesn't see the light of day. Pubbed in March, here's my profile of the new behind-the-scenes proprietor of Fox News extremism. theintercept.com/2019/03/30/lac…
