Don’t look now, but the Washington Post is on the hair beat again. WaPo fashion writer Robin Givhan had this 500-word piece in yesterday’s A Section about a certain former governor’s perfect locks.
Romney has been accused of having anchorman hair — the kind of glossy perfection that lies neat and immobile atop the heads of men such as NBC’s Brian Williams and movie land’s Ron Burgundy. The comparison is not meant as a compliment.
The historical record includes photos of Romney surrounded by those of lesser locks walking into the wind. Everyone else’s face is lashed by their hair; Romney’s hair remains as tidy as a Ken doll’s. When he ran with the Olympic torch in 2006, his hair remained frozen in place. Before the airing of his sweat-soaked-hair ad, the last time Romney’s silken strands moved appeared to have been Oct. 10, 1994, at a Columbus Day parade in Worcester, Mass., when a mighty wind nudged them ever . . . so . . . slightly.
While the anchorman package is built around the idea of creating an authoritative, knowledgeable, trustworthy and likable presence that viewers will want to welcome into the living room, the same inferences don’t hold true for politicians. Having hair so improbably perfect that the candidate must deny dyeing it is not good politics.
And on and on it went. Givhan, who has also been overly-fascinated with Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits and cleavage, not only scrutinized the quality and appearance of Mitt Romney’s hair, she parlayed this overwrought analysis into a political examination, explaining what voters will think (and expect) from a candidate’s coiffure.
To reiterate a point from the weekend, I try not to be a purist when it comes to articles about political trivia. Presidential campaigns are bound to include some coverage of the candidate’s personalities, families, interests, etc. Voters care about some of these details when evaluating presidential hopefuls, so it’s probably not realistic to expect major media outlets to be all-policy, all-the-time.
Having said that, 500 words in the A Section about “anchorman hair” is just mind-numbing.
Worse, the WaPo followed it up with yet another reference to — you guessed it — John Edwards’ hair.
From a profile piece today (which wasn’t written by Robin Givhan):
Always describing himself as “the son of a millworker,” he tells stories of family hardships — the one about his father having to borrow $50, at 100 percent interest, to bring his newborn son home from the hospital is a favorite — and says he identifies with “the little guy.”
But he does so with such glibness, and frequency, and it contrasts so greatly with who he is today — a polished former trial lawyer worth millions — that the truth of his biography is sometimes lost. These days, Edwards’s $400 haircuts and $6 million house garner the lion’s share of attention, and he is testimony to the fact that youthful good looks aren’t necessarily a political asset.
Greg Sargent wonders if it’s even possible for the Washington Post to not report on the haircut while talking about Edwards. Apparently, the answer is “no.”
Well, yes, WaPo, Edwards’ $400 haircut does get “the lion’s share of attention” because…
…YOU KEEP FRIGGIN’ WRITING ABOUT IT!!!
…Look, the man does have nice hair, no question about it. But really, WaPo, it’s time to stop this. Oh, it won’t be easy to quit. It will be very, very painful. But you can do it. We’re behind you all the way. Be strong.
The first step would be the WaPo admitting it has a problem. I’m not optimistic.