Is John Edwards' haircut news? Yes, say N&O readers who see a $400-haircut lifestyle as not consonant with a presidential campaign built on an anti-poverty platform.

"One of the major obstacles that John Edwards has had to overcome thus far is squaring his concern for the poverty-stricken with his personal wealth and opulent lifestyle," writes Mark Piper of Wilson. "To the extent that his ridiculously expensive haircuts have contributed to his credibility gap, they are newsworthy."

Nay, say other readers who see the haircut story as a media obsession with the trivial that detracts from coverage of serious election issues.

"The 'news' coverage of Edwards' haircut, both in The N&O and elsewhere, seems just another quasi-news event engineered for the purpose of marginalizing a legitimate candidate and diverting attention away from actual issues relevant to the campaign," said Pete Rau of Durham. "Frankly, I think it beneath a serious news organization to give this sort of thing much coverage at all."

The Edwards haircut story -- that he paid $400 for a haircut from a Beverly Hills hair-stylist -- broke in April. It was given new legs earlier this month after a Washington Post interview with the stylist, who said he'd cut Edwards' hair 16 times since 2003. On July 14, The News & Observer ran a front-page story saying Edwards' attention to his appearance reflected a cultural trend that says it's OK for modern men to preen.

All that was too much for some readers. Continued fixation on Edwards' coif, critics said, is unfair to the candidate, distracts from more substantive issues and contributes to a debasement of American political dialog. "I think there's enough going on in the world and in our political system that we don't need to waste ink on quirky stories about politicians getting their hair cut," wrote James Sellers of Raleigh, in a letter to the editor.

Editors at The N&O defend the coverage. The haircut story is being widely discussed and it falls within a pattern -- expensive home, a hedge fund directorship -- that belies the candidate's populist pitch.

The recent primping story, Features Editor Thad Ogburn said, was a serious look at a societal trend: "I think it was a fair story looking at an interesting topic of why it's this way," said Ogburn, who edited the story. "I don't think it in any way detracted from our coverage of substantive issues."

I'd add also that The N&O has indeed provided "serious" coverage, of Edwards and other candidates. The paper published a 50-inch report in May, on the front of the Q Section, about Edwards' health-care plan. The N&O sent a reporter on the road with Edwards last week on his national poverty tour. That was the lead story in Tuesday's paper, with big headline, four pictures and a map. And on Friday a front-page article took a close look at the candidate's anti-poverty program and its political consequences.

l l l

I SURVEYED THE PAPER'S READER ADVISORY PANEL, a group of 300-plus readers whom we ask about coverage from time to time. Of 155 who responded, 94, or 61 percent, said there was too much haircut coverage, while 58, or 37 percent, thought it was just fine. (A few weren't sure). A couple of their comments:

"A man who claims to be of common stock with deep mill-town roots gets haircuts costing more than his old country barber made in a week and lives in a gaudy manse that would have made that mill owner green with envy. If anything, you haven't hit this story hard enough." -- Frank Tursi, Swansboro.

"Not really interested in hair of any candidate (only what's under it)" -- Helen LeFebvre, Raleigh.

Next page >