PressEthic

Here's how a recent Washington Post Election 2006 story begins:

AUBURN, N.Y. -- Maybe Democratic candidate Michael Arcuri is running strong in this Republican House district because he pledges to expand health coverage, balance the budget and raise the minimum wage.

Or maybe it's his piercing Italian eyes and runner's physique.

"He is pretty good-looking," observed Paula Ferrin with admiration, as the 47-year-old district attorney worked the crowd at a local senior center.

"What we want is brains, honey," scolded her friend Rose Oliver.

"True," Ferrin answered, "but handsome doesn't hurt."

The research is unambiguous that Ferrin is right: Attractive politicians have an edge over not-so-attractive ones. The phenomenon is resonating especially this year. By a combination of luck and design, Democrats seem to be fielding an uncommonly high number of uncommonly good-looking candidates.

The beauty gap between the parties, some on Capitol Hill muse, could even be a factor in who controls Congress after Election Day.

Democratic operatives do not publicly say that they went out of their way this year to recruit candidates with a high hotness quotient. Privately, however, they acknowledge that, as they focused on finding the most dynamic politicians to challenge vulnerable Republicans, it did not escape their notice that some of the most attractive prospects were indeed often quite attractive.

Another way to phrase that last sentence is to say that Democratic operatives privately admitted that they've noticed their candidates are better looking than their opponents*.

It's the kind of story that almost makes horserace coverage of an election seem substantive.

And let's be honest: if looks do matter in politics, and they do, isn't this a legitimate story to write?

I'd argue that it is, but that its subjectivity demands particularly good sourcing so that readers can judge for themselves whether the thrust of the piece is accurate.

Instead we're given passages like this one:

In most of the races, the Democratic challengers look a lot like standard-issue politicians -- not likely to impress the judges at Atlantic City. But there are others who, while they might not have movie-star looks, are certainly well above the C-SPAN median.

The list is decidedly unscientific, but it includes several whose names come up often on Capitol Hill for reasons other than their policy platforms. Among those on it, in addition to Arcuri, are Brad Ellsworth, a swaggering Indiana sheriff; businesswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, who has chiseled features and rides a motorcycle; and Heath Shuler of North Carolina, a strapping former quarterback for the Washington Redskins. In Tennessee, Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr., a lean and stylish 36-year-old, has drawn admiring looks.

Has drawn admiring looks from whom?

Elsewhere the article describes attractive Democratic candidates and uglified Republican opponents, but why?

Isn't this the most appropriate story in history for the photo essay, or at least links within the Web piece to photographs of all the candidates mentioned?

It seems to me that subjective stories, though sometimes important, demand the highest level of transparency that can reasonably be provided. On that count the above story fails to be as fair as it might.

*Gratuitous Zoolander footnote: (Really, really ridiculously good looking. It isn't the kind of scoop that requires an investigatory journalist leaving recalcitrant sources bloodied along the way to get.)