On Monday, we talked about an item from The Politco’s Ben Smith on John Edwards having spent $400 on a couple of haircuts earlier this year. I got a chance to chat with Ben about the item a few hours later and he raised some good points — the item on the haircut wasn’t a full-fledged article (just one of several blog items) and the haircuts were paid for with donor contributions, which does seem a little odd. Fair enough.
That said, I think Ben’s item upset a lot of people because we knew where this was going. Reporters covering the campaign, many of whom prefer frivolity to substance, got handed a juicy one. Two $400 haircuts has to be considered way better than windsurfing. In ’93, the media talked about Clinton getting a $200 haircut — and made up a few details along the way — for weeks. That’s not Ben’s fault, of course, but we saw his piece and immediately thought, “Oh no, not again.”
And sure enough, the Associated Press ran this gem today.
Looking pretty is costing John Edwards’ presidential campaign a lot of pennies. The Democrat’s campaign committee picked up the tab for two haircuts at $400 each by celebrity stylist Joseph Torrenueva of Beverly Hills, Calif., according to a financial report filed with the Federal Election Commission.
FEC records show Edwards also availed himself of $250 in services from a trendy salon and spa in Dubuque, Iowa, and $225 in services from the Pink Sapphire in Manchester, N.H., which is described on its Web site as “a unique boutique for the mind, body and face” that caters mostly to women. (emphasis added)
Look, I realize this is the kind of story that’ll make for some late-night jokes. Not every piece of campaign coverage is going to be substantive, and some lighthearted stories help maintain the public’s interest. And Edwards’ use of donor money is bound to raise a few eyebrows here.
For that matter, if we’re going to be intellectually honest, if a right-wing presidential candidate was talking about poverty while using campaign contributions to pay for a couple of $400 haircuts, sure, I’d probably do a blog post on it.
But does the AP really have to report on Edwards “looking pretty”?
Greg Sargent is spot on.
You can argue that the story’s legit, because Edwards apparently used campaign money to pay for the haircut, or that such lifestyle choices are fair game for coverage, or that the Edwards people should be prepared to deal with such smears. Whatever.
But this is about the AP. It’s a news organization, and it shouldn’t be playing the “pretty boy” game in stories about Edwards, given the degree to which it’s become a tried-and-true GOP and winger talking point, both against Edwards in particular and those wussy Dem males in general (remember the stories about Bill Clinton’s and John Kerry’s haircuts/stylists?). Labeling Edwards “pretty” in this context just isn’t defensible for a news org like the AP. You already have a long history here, with assorted GOP operatives labeling Edwards the “Breck girl”; Ann Coulter calling him a “faggot”; and Rush Limbaugh asking whether Edwards might be our “first female President.”
And now the AP is playing along with this ugly game, labeling him “pretty.”
It’s going to be a long campaign, isn’t it.