Adventures in the Passive Voice

The Washington Post's John Solomon, who has made a career out of writing cheap hit pieces on Democratic politicians, has struck again. This time the focus of his tireless investigative reporting is John Edwards' hair stylist. I kid you not. The article's headline reads: Splitting Hairs, Edwards's Stylist Tells His Side of Story: Man Behind Pricey Coifs Details Long Relationship.

As you've no doubt guessed from the headline alone, the article is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with mainstream political reporting. It's a tour de force of triviality and passive aggressiveness. Solomon has gone to the trouble of tracking down Edwards' stylist and interviewing him about everything from the price of his services to his personal political leanings.

What really stands out, though, is Solomon's almost comical use of the passive voice. This paragraph, in particular, is worthy of some kind of award:

It is some kind of commentary on the state of American politics that as Edwards has campaigned for president, vice president and now president again, his hair seems to have attracted as much attention as, say, his position on health care. But when his campaign reported in April that it had paid for two of his haircuts at $400 each, the political damage was immediate. With each punch line on late night TV his image as a self-styled populist making poverty his signature issue was further eroded.

Solomon informs us that Edwards' hair "seems to have attracted as much attention as . . . his position on health care." It's as if there is some sort of inexorable force at work here. The hair just attracts attention all on its own, like a magnet attracting metal objects. Journalists like John Solomon apparently have no role in this process. Here's an idea, John: why don't you write an article about Edwards' health care plan instead of wasting all of our time on this trivial garbage?

Solomon laments that this fascination with Edwards' hair "is some kind of commentary on the state of American politics." Actually, John, it's a commentary on the state of American political reporting, and you are the problem.