To the editor: Robin Abcarian’s column on the reaction by male journalists to the coverage of Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) trying on a colorful jacket while campaigning for president in South Carolina brought to mind the countless times the public has seen images of men being fitted by a tailor used to convey power, prestige and wealth.
But when a woman tries on clothes, the event and reporting of it is trivialized. If Harris had been getting fitted for a couture suit, I can only imagine the backlash.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t — because we are women.
Robin Provart-Kelly, Culver City
To the editor: Abcarian describes campaign coverage as if reporters are not much more than camcorders: “If the candidate tromps through a pumpkin field in southern Wisconsin with his wife and kids on Halloween, that’s what you write about.”
Or maybe you don’t.
If the media would focus on issues and ignore or at least de-emphasize the meaningless photo ops and cliched pablum, perhaps there would be less of the latter.
Candidates crave and require attention above all if they are to have a chance at success. If they know that the only way to get it is to stick to substance, they will drop the stunts and give us a campaign about issues.
Alan B. Posner, Santa Barbara
To the editor: Why was it “unfortunate” that Harris bought the sequined jacket? Perhaps it was more unfortunate and more newsworthy that she immediately “bought” the Jussie Smollett story.
Unfortunately, coverage on that story doesn’t have your popular victim angle, but is a bit more telling about Harris and her judgment.
Robert Flax, Beverly Hills