So, Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic and Mopper8 at TPM Café have now posted defenses of the extensive media coverage of the Edwards haircut story. Well, in the tradition of "the invasion was a good idea but Bush did it wrong," neither have actually said that the "extensive" nature of the coverage was justifiable, but just that it was justifiable for the reporting to appear in the first place. Because, I guess, after all these years, we should trust the press corps to discuss an issue of this nature with a tactful level of restraint. Digby and Ezra Klein have produced excellent responses to these pieces.
Personally, instead of arguing over the amount of coverage given to the haircut, or to the issue of whether or not it was worthy to be reported on in the first place, I have a different series of questions for the members of the media who propagated this story. Rather than bickering over what coverage has been fair or unfair on the campaign trail, I would rather be constructive and try to set out some ground rules that define the limits of fair and unfair reporting on future stories. As such, I think that if the editors and producers of large national news organizations with daily audiences of more than 200,000 people could provide answers to all of the following questions, it would result in less tension surrounding the validity of their political coverage:
What is the acceptable amount of money to spend on a haircut for a presidential candidate who makes poverty the focus of his campaign? Is it $30? $50? Is there a cost of living adjustment based on where you live? How about the tip-what is the recommended amount? Do candidates with different areas of issue focus have different maximum haircut limits? Accompanying guidelines for candidates running for Senate, Governor, House and state legislature would also be useful. (Note: In the interests of guaranteeing that I am not a hypocrite for even asking these questions, nine days ago I actually gave myself my most recent haircut. Since I am only on the Pennsylvania State Democratic committee, not to mention that I represent one of the poorest areas of the entire country, I knew that the amount of money I could non-hypocritically spend on a haircut was pretty minimal.)
What is the acceptable size home for a politician and public figure who makes global warming and renewable energy the focus of his efforts? At what point does the home become too large before he turns into a hypocrite? Is it 3,000 square feet? 4,500? This question can also relate to candidates who focus on poverty. In fact, are there different levels of acceptable sizes for global warming politicians than there are for poverty-focused politicians? Additionally, please provide information on the allotted size of yard, money spent on landscaping, and lavishness of Christmas decorations.
The acceptable amount of money to be spent on breakfast, lunch, dinner, as well as acceptable foods to be eaten at each of those meals, would also be helpful. Please note which foods become unacceptable based on different policy positions a given candidate supports. Digby has more on this.
How many medals are Democratic veterans who run for public office required to earn before questioning their military service is no longer considered a story worthy of several weeks of continuous discussion in the established media? 15? 20? I guess different medals have different values, so perhaps some sort of point system could be created in order to provide clarity on this issue. Perhaps two points for a Purple Heart, but fifteen points for the Congressional Medal of Honor, with a threshold of 20 as a requirement, would work? A guide of this sort would let us know whose military service record was off-limits, and who could be rightfully questioned as a coward or traitor.
How many divorces are required in order for a "family values" candidate to be branded as a hypocrite? Clearly, one or two is not enough, considering the current Republican field. Would three be adequate? How about four? Are there bonus points awarded if any of these marriages are to your cousin, or a woman more than twenty years your junior?
Finally, please information on the acceptable amount of money Democratic candidates are allowed to spend on all of the following consumer goods without appearing hypocritical for any of the reasons listed above: cars, clothing (both business and casual), televisions, DVD players, laptop computers, PDAs, coffee tables, sporting goods, and vacation souvenirs.
If the regulations surrounding these issues were made public, I think it would assist in reducing public confusion, not to mention aggravation, over the coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign. A little transparency goes a long way toward building trust. It would also be a service to presidential campaigns, since they would better know how not to anger the national media. Open communication is an essential part of any healthy relationship, and the ability to read minds is still in dispute among the scientific community. If neither the public nor presidential campaigns understand what you find to be acceptable, how can we be expected to make you happy? Just tell us what the groundrules are, and then maybe we can begin to work together in a productive spirit of friendship and cooperation. I look forward to your response.
Update: Based on a story in today's Washington Post, here is another question: what level of cleavage is an acceptable amount to show before you get all hot and bothered to write a story about it? Please provide specific measurements.
