Preface: I believe that it is existentially essential and an ethical duty of citizenship to prevent Donald Trump from becoming President of the United States. I also believe that the news media is obligated to report the campaign objectively and fairly, admittedly something they have increasingly appeared both unwilling and unable to do. For the mews media to elect the President by allying itself to one party is a far more dangerous threat to democracy than, for example, organizations of citizens being allowed to make whatever political statements they choose during the course of a campaign. Democrats like Bernie Sanders don’t see the news media placing its weighty foot on the scale as a problem, because they know where that foot will go: on their side of the scale, hard, like it did in 2008 and 2012.
All signs point to the news media planning to metaphorically stomp on the scale in the coming campaign and justifying it because of Trump. This is also known as “the ends justify the means.”
Today’s Ethics Quiz continues the Ethics Alarms ongoing inquiry into what ethical journalism standards should be during the 2016 Presidential race.
Late last week, I was somewhat stunned to see the Washington Post Style Section dominated by a feature of the sort the Post usually reserves for holidays, like News Years or Valentines day. Almost the entire front page of the section was devoted to the single topic of ridiculing Donald Trump’s appearance, specifically his hair. Titled “The 100 greatest descriptions of Donald Trump’s hair ever written,” it began in part,
“Here, in the most comprehensive and highly scientific endeavor of its kind, culled from 30 years of news articles, we present the top 100 unique descriptors of the Trump mane, written by journalists or pontificators who secretly fancy themselves poets.”
Among the entries…
9. An ambitious corn dog that escaped from the concession stand at a rural Alabama fairground, stole an unattended wig, hopped a freight train to Atlantic City and never looked back
15. A mullet that died in some horrific accident
62. A dead skunk
70. A dishrag that on closer inspection is alive with maggots
Stipulating that this article appears in the Style Section, along with the comics, movie reviews and human interest stories, your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…
Was this orgy of hair ridicule of a Presidential candidate being published in a major newspaper fair?
My answer?
I’m a lawyer: I could make the counter-argument to the one I’m about make, and I wouldn’t be ashamed to have my name associated with it. Nonetheless, I strongly feel that the feature was unprofessional, displayed an unethical double standard, and was unfair.
It was also, I must emphasize, old hat, unoriginal, absurdly long, and nowhere near funny enough to justify it.
All that needs to be asked is this: would the Washington Post ever run a similar piece about Barack Obama’s ears, or Hillary Clinton’s legs? If you want to stick with hair, how about Joe Biden’s plugs? Bernie Sanders’ Doc Brown ‘do?
The answer, I assume we can agree, is no. It wouldn’t dare.
I know. It’s all in good fun, right? Bullhockey. This was an ad hominem attack, as all insulting descriptions of a politicians appearance are. Describe Donald Trump in clownish terms, and he seems to be a clown. This very paper features pundit after pundit who erupted in fury when Trump described Carly Fiorina’s appearance in uncomplimentary terms, How rude, how boorish, to attack an adversary on the basis of appearance! This Trump hair insult orgy is utter hypocrisy.
Don’t kid yourself: this was a political attack that didn’t have the integrity to admit it. Saul Alinsky’s Rule #5 is “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” Donald Trump makes himself look ridiculous on a regular basis, and it isn’t the Post’s job to sink to play-ground insults just in case its readers are too dim to reject Trump on substance.
I’ll be waiting for that feature with all the Hillary thigh and piano legs jokes. And I’ll wait until Hell freezes over. The Post will publish “The 100 greatest descriptions of Donald Trump’s tan” before such a feature is even suggested, and the humble staffer suggesting it is summarily fired as a sexist pig.
My verdict: This was news media bias at its nastiest.
Ethics Alarms 
It’s okay for lefties to make themselves look ridiculous, but not for okay for non-lefties. It’s okay for Nancy Pelosi to have her face and nose carved up and Joe Biden to get plugs, but not okay for Trump to wear a bizarre comb over. For a lefty, it’s good politics, for anyone else it’s vanity and subject to vicious attack.
I agree with your assessment, Jack. Unfunny and unprofessional. Immature even. Must have been a slow Style-news day.
I especially liked “That curious thatch, which he wears longer than most men of his generation who are not in a ’70s revival band.”, but as it’s not and again pointed out: I’m an asshole.
I wonder, if Bobo the Clown were making a serious run for the presidency, if it would be taboo to discuss the pile of frizzly ginger hair, smeared oil makeup or pastel polka dot onesie, or if that is ad hominem? At what point does a personal affectation become so distracting that it actually becomes an indicator of character? More, Trump is like a ten year old with a potato gun running around in a glass house: “Look at that face” “Only Rosie O’Donnell” … Is it right to hoist him up on his own petard? Maybe not. I still think it’s… fitting.
“it’s not and” now…. And I’m not sure what I did to have that autocorrect that way.
When Bobo is an entertainer, one set of journalistic rules apply. When he’s a serious candidate, he must be treated like other serious candidates.
Right, and I think that any other candidate that wore a frizzy red wig, greasepaint, and a polka dot onesie would get called out for dressing like a clown. This is like the octopus hat scenario: You CAN wear an octopus hat.. You don’t get to complain when people stare or comment.
Bad analogy though. Calling out a candidate for dressing like a clown is legit; criticizing him based on how he looks isn’t. Trump’s looks don’t make him more or less qualified, but the attacks are designed to diminish him. Pure ad hominem.
Right, but people aren’t calling him old, wrinkled and overweight or pointing out his ridiculously small hands (Ok, that last one.). They’re pointing out the things that he’s done to make himself look ridiculous: Spending far too much time in a UV bed with goggles on, and having his stylist do up his hair like a freak.
It’s…. so obvious, and weird I think it becomes a question of judgement. This is a man we actually can’t trust to get himself made up in the morning, how the hell do you expect him to fair in foreign relations?
Can’t cut appearance that thin, HT. Trump does the hair and the tan to look good, whether anyone thinks it does or not. It’s like making fun of Nancy Pelosi’s face lifts, or Hillary’s smocks, or Bernie’s hair, as I said. Or weight.
“Trump does the hair and the tan to look good”
Exactly! And he fails so spectacularly that I think they’re legitimate condemnation of his thought process (not that we really NEED more evidence of that). He thought those things would help, he thought they were good ideas, he stubbornly refuses to drop them, even though they’re obviously liabilities. This perhaps falls more under the category of a politician wearing a grill for the camera than a facelift.
https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8a047b4c742a1bbd0d4d5a17c434aeba?convert_to_webp=true
But don’t worry about how he looks, right? Gotta look past that.
The look has worked. He’s been proven right. He’s recognizable, he isn’t repulsive, and he is of indeterminate age. You can’t say his appearance is bad judgment when it accomplishes his objective. He knows marketing better than either of us. Trump would not be criticized for his hair if he were a competent, moderate, conventional politician. John Edwards’ hair was the self-indicting mark of the narcissist he is. Where was the Post feature on that? John Kerry’s hair is silly, but there are better ways to show how untrustworthy HE is.
“The look has worked. He’s been proven right. He’s recognizable, he isn’t repulsive, and he is of indeterminate age. You can’t say his appearance is bad judgment when it accomplishes his objective.”
Of course I can. This is like arguing that the best way to exterminate mice is with a shotgun (“Well the mice are dead, aren’t they?”). Remember that the hair predates the candidacy: Yes, it was used as a tool to avoid looking old, but it was also a prop designed to be outrageous. and collect attention. Sure It worked: It’s outrageous (So is Gene Simmond’s stage makeup. Notice that he no longer wears it.), but that doesn’t mean that it was the best way of attaining that goal, and it sure as hell doesn’t make it immune from criticism.
“Trump would not be criticized for his hair if he were a competent, moderate, conventional politician.”
Except he was mocked for his hair even before he was a bumbling, extreme, unconventional politician, you know… back when he was a bombastic reality TV star.
“John Edwards’ hair was the self-indicting mark of the narcissist he is. Where was the Post feature on that?”
I had to Google that name because I didn’t know who that was. Edward’s hair looks like hair… I don’t understand how you can reasonably compare it to the bleached baby wombat perched precociously on Trump’s head.
No, HT, you can’t. You can disagree with killing mice with a shotgun, but you can’t say it doesn’t kill mice. You wrote,“Trump does the hair and the tan to look good” Exactly! And he fails so spectacularly that I think they’re legitimate condemnation of his thought process..”
Fails spectacularly? He had a long-running TV show, starring himself, with that look. He beat 14 Republican Presidential candidates with that look! He’s about to run for President in the general election, and his poll numbers are rising! That’s some failure—and in show business and politics, looks do matter. Ask Nixon. Ask Ted Cruz.
John Edwards hair cannot be understood in one photo. He was over 40, it was never out of place, and screamed vanity. Many noted this…but nobody devoted a full Style ridicule piece to it. He looked, in fact, like he was…a manipulative trial lawyer (or an anchor man.)
You’ve moved the goalposts from “Trump does the hair and the tan to look good” to “Trump uses his hair and tan to attract attention.” And while the second is probably true, and effective, the second sure as hell isn’t.
It’s a strange line you’ve drawn, and it makes for some ridiculous logic… “I’m going to do something stupid to attract attention, and so long as it succeeds in drawing attention and media-starving my opponents, you can’t criticise me for how stupid it is.” When someone uses their looks as a strategy, it should be fair game to criticise them for it. I just don’t see how you can think any other way. And you’re talking like he got where he is on looks alone. He’s where he is despite looking like he’s been struck by lightning and then rolled in Cheetos, not because if it. He’s where he is because of what he’s said resonated with all the extra eyes and ears he’s had on him because the cameras were attracted to his electrified Cheetos look.
YOU think he looks bad? Who cares what you think, or me? Trump isn’t aiming at us. You think he’s trying to look bad? Your argument is like the ones my parents made in the sixties: those singers look terrible—long hair, sloppy clothes. He isn’t thinking, “I’ll make my hair look silly and my skin orange to attract attention.” He obviously think this looks good, and is the optimum image for him, and all evidence says that it’s working. You certainly can’t question his judgment based on his appearance. If anything, his appearance shows that he knows what he’s doing. If people didn’t like how Trump looked, he wouldn’t be where his is. In politics and show biz, cognitive dissonance rules. People like looking at and listening to Trump. Res Ipsa Loquitur.
YOU think he looks bad? Who cares what you think, or me? Trump isn’t aiming at us. You think he’s trying to look bad? Your argument is like the ones my parents made in the sixties: those singers look terrible—long hair, sloppy clothes. He isn’t thinking, “I’ll make my hair look silly and my skin orange to attract attention.” He obviously think this looks good, and is the optimum image for him, and all evidence says that it’s working. You certainly can’t question his judgment based on his appearance. If anything, his appearance shows that he knows what he’s doing. If people didn’t like how Trump looked, he wouldn’t be where his is. In politics and show biz, cognitive dissonance rules. People like looking at and listening to Trump. Res Ipsa Loquitur.
I think you’re hung up on this because his looks are attached to him, and there’s such a huge stigma around criticising appearance. If this were an ad, or a talking point, or a policy position, you wouldn’t even blink before criticising it, especially if those things amounted to nothing more than an ugly, profanity laced attention grab. But attach that attention grab to your body, and all of a sudden pointing it out is ad hominem. The fact that the attention grab works doesn’t make it less stupid or more presidential.
‘You think he’s trying to look bad?’
Yes, frankly. I think ‘unique’ was what he was actually aiming at, but ‘ridiculous’ could be shoehorned in there, but ‘bad’ isn’t out to lunch.
‘Your argument is like the ones my parents made in the sixties’
A generation that fell behind current fashion trends isn’t the same thing as pointing out that the Emperor isn’t wearing clothes.
‘You certainly can’t question his judgment based on his appearance. If anything, his appearance shows that he knows what he’s doing. If people didn’t like how Trump looked, he wouldn’t be where his is. In politics and show biz, cognitive dissonance rules.’
Oh come on! Explain Peter Dinklage, Ron Jeremy, Rosie O`Donnell, Cher, Janet Reno, or Mitch McConnell then. Hell, Look at Ben Carson, who I believe you called fish-eyed and had a ‘soulless gaze’, did he get uglier between his peak and his plummet, or did he open his mouth and everyone realised what an idiot he was?
At some point, attractive becomes plain, which becomes odd, strange or gruesome, and attention is gathered by the extremes.
Peter Dinklage is a dwarf. He’s a great looking dwarf.
Ron Jeremy’s important body part is irrelevant to his face,
Rosie O`Donnell was, in her prime, cute. Fat does not preclude pleasant looking.
Cher NOW? not applicable. She’s a museum piece. If she had looked like this in the Sixties, you never would have head of her.
Janet Reno! The Popular Janet Reno?
Mitch McConnell look the best he can. He loses votes because he’s a troll—no doubt about it. He’s successful in spite of his looks.
Ben Carson‘s looks hurt him, but what he said was so stupid it didn’t matter.
“A generation that fell behind current fashion trends isn’t the same thing as pointing out that the Emperor isn’t wearing clothes.” The issue is people thinking one choice looks bad when the people who count don’t. Those who like Trump think his hair and tan are just fine, and the over-all effect work…not to attract attention…that’s Miley Cyrus—but to be attractive, as in “attract positive feelings.” It’s a class thing. Trump looks rich, or how many people think rich people look. Rich is good. Just like Bernie looks like a revolutionary. For his audience, good. Smart.
I think you’re flailing.
“The issue is people thinking one choice looks bad when the people who count don’t. Those who like Trump think his hair and tan are just fine”
And the people who think what he says is smart thinks what he says is smart, that doesn’t make what he says smart, that just makes those people idiots.
This is EXACTLY an “emperor has no clothes” scenario, the more I think about it. WAS the emperor wearing all the clothes he needed for everyone but that guy?
And just for my edification, that argument that you’d use as the devil’s advocate in this situation… The one you wouldn’t even feel bad about… What was it?
Sure: It’s humor, that’s all. No different from making fun of Reagan’s head-shaking or Kennedy’s Brahmin accent. Satire. Just collected jokes about a Presidential; candidate. Style covers pop culture, and this is pop culture. No harm intended.
Heck, Trump jokes about his hair. Rationalizations galore fit here, like #2. The “They’re Just as Bad” Excuse, or “They had it coming”; Tit for Tat,” Golden Rule Distortions (“Do Unto Others As the the Others Does unto Others”) and most of all, #42. The Hillary Inoculation, or “If he/she doesn’t care, why should anyone else?”
Besides, all the Post is doing is quoting others, and as a chronicler of the culture, that’s always fair journalism. You know, like Trump re-tweets…
Point of Order! John Edwards was made fun of for his hair while running for President, including how much he paid for his ridiculous cuts. It showed him to be an incredibly vain man — no surprise that he was later found to be a cheater as well.
Proposed alternate post title. One weird trick to make political click-bait even more unethical.
Bazinga!
Think you’re ethical? Take this quiz and find out.
Five ways to make your old ethics lessons new again.
The ethics train-wreck you just won’t believe.
Nine ethical principals you thought you’d never use.
You’ll never guess what our newest rationalization is.
The comment of the day you never expected to read.
Ten things you wish Jack Marshall had taught you about ethics.
And finally… Four ethics blogs you’re not reading: But should be.
Ethicists hate him! See the video before it’s banned!
That’s perfect. 🙂
On a semi related note, a left wing friend of a facebook friend seemed surprised that it took the media so long to turn on trump. They posted this link. Anyone else suspect the media was deliberately trying to set up trump as their favored candidate’s opponent? I honestly think Trump was the only republican candidate who could hand the election to Clinton.
Then they out-thought themselves, because Trump may be the one candidate who is immune to the usual media shiv job. The media isn’t smart enough to set up a candidate to destroy him. Or diabolical enough. It’s just unprofessional and untrustworthy, that’s all.
I think the real ethics question is as follows: “Is it unprofessional for a major newspaper to make ad hominem attacks toward a snake oil salesman who managed to capture his party’s nomination for President?”
I don’t know — it’s a head scratcher for sure.
That’s easy. Yes. 2 A. Sicilian Ethics, or “They had it coming”
Ad hominem relates to using something about a person, to the man, as a reason to dismiss their argument. Nothing about Trumps hair relates to his political argument or his fitness for office.
If the click-bait has been 90 outrageous things Trump has said about women, number 47 will make your blood boil. It’d merely be slimy, which is unavoidable in click-bait listicles.
No, it’s more complicated that that. Snake oil salesmen, by definition, are unfit for office. Engaging them in civil discourse might be doing the public a disservice because it suggests that they might have opinions worthy of discussion.
But Beth, as you know, there is no definition of snake-oil salesman that is objective and reliable. Is Bernie Sanders selling snake oil? (Socialism is the essence of snake oil—take it from a Greek..) Was Barack Obama? Is “A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage” snake oil? A good argument can be made that 99% of candidates are selling snake oil.Obama promised to tackle the debt and head the most transparent administration ever. Was “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it. Period,” snake oil, a lie, or something else?
I’m still marveling at: “Saul Alinsky’s Rule #5 is “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” That’s amazing. I think Beth’s bought into it a little. Basic ends justify the means lefty stuff.
I’ve never read anything by Saul Alinsky, but my “If I had a nickel” collection is growing into a tidy sum.
Bernie is not a snake oil salesman because he believes what he spouts. If you drink your own magic kool-aid, then you’re not a snake oil salesman — you are just horribly misguided (and probably dead).
Barack Obama? It depends on whether or not he knew what he was saying was incorrect or deceitful. I knew it was incorrect at the time, but I’m a recovering insurance lawyer. I don’t know whether that one falls into an incompetence or deceit column.
“A chicken in every pot?” That’s just a campaign slogan. I guess it falls on the snake oil scale, because slogans are designed to appeal to low information voters, but it is not as bad as anything we’re seeing coming from Trump.
Note — I am not defending the Post piece. I didn’t read it, don’t plan to, and certainly wouldn’t have authorized it if I was running a paper called anything other than The Onion.
I’d put it firmly in the deceit column, since he kept repeating in even in the face of evidence that it was wrong, and apparently the DHHS knew in 2010 that it was false.
Talking about Trump’s appearance/hair is petty partisan bull shit no matter where it comes from, it’s sophomoric. It’s blatantly unethical partisan bull shit coming from any media outlet – these people should know better but what keeps on surprising me is they just don’t give a damn about ethical behavior anymore, media outlets are all conglomerations of partisan hacks. The media keeps on providing plenty of facts to support that the they have become nothing but year-round partisan tools.
There are so many other non-petty negative things to discuss about Trump and these unethical partisans are talking about appearance/hair.
It’s sad.
“For the mews media to elect the President by allying itself to one party is a far more dangerous threat to democracy than, for example, organizations of citizens being allowed to make whatever political statements they choose during the course of a campaign. ”
The media’s performance over the last few days has raised the very same concern in my mind. Thank you for pointing this out.