A radical reimagining of the White House correspondents' dinner
Plus: Some excellent escape reading
Last week, I wrote a Guardian column outlining my longstanding objections to the White House correspondents’ dinner, which predate Donald Trump’s terms in office.
Was it really a wise idea, I wondered, for Washington DC journalists and their bosses to chum around with the very government officials that they were supposed to be covering? Shouldn’t reporters maintain some critical distance? What about the “optics” of this much-publicized event (and the week of gala festivities surrounding it) that made journalists appear frivolous about holding the government accountable to the public? Given the American public’s rock-bottom trust in traditional media, hasn’t this annual, televised display worsened that problem?
That was written before a gunman appeared at the Washington Hilton on Saturday night, allegedly in an assassination attempt on the president. The thousands of attendees were still eating their burrata and spring pea salad; the chateaubriand and lobster hadn’t even been served. (Yes, these details are for real.)
Now the organizers are considering rescheduling the dinner. And Donald Trump, who told an interviewer over the weekend that he had planned a speech that really ripped the press corps, is urging the rescheduling happen within 30 days — as if he were in charge of that decision. (He’s not; he was an invitee.)
I can’t disagree with former CNN journalist and now independent journalist John Harwood who has an easy solution, not too different from what I advocated years ago in my Washington Post column about the dinner where I suggested the organizers “stick a fork in it.” “For cryin’ out loud, cancel the dinner permanently,” Harwood posted Monday, calling it a “godawful event that serves no useful purpose.”
But I know that there’s a strong urge to rebound, undaunted, from what happened last weekend.
“We will do this again,” was the way the president of the White House Correspondents’ Association, Weijia Jiang of CBS News, put it on Saturday night.
I have some strong suggestions for the next such gathering whenever it may be. To wit:
First, if this is really about celebrating the First Amendment, free expression and press rights, don’t invite people who stand in clear opposition to that. Yes, for starters, do not invite Trump, Pete Hegseth, Brendan Carr or Stephen Miller. Their anti-press behavior is disqualifying and there’s no need for “unity” with them. On the unity topic, be sure to read the former Chicago Tribune editor Mark Jacob’s post: “The press isn’t supposed to seek unity with politicians. It’s supposed to seek the truth. That’s easier to accomplish – and to get the public to believe – when you’re not clinking champagne glasses with the people you’re reporting on.”
To those who think it’s essential to observe longstanding tradition and invite the president and other prominent government officials, think about a couple of analogies before things move forward.
Here’s one from Oliver Darcy, who publishes the Status media newsletter: It’s “akin to a fire department inviting arsonists to a gathering aimed at celebrating firefighting.”
And I’ll add this one: It’s akin to a woman who has been battered by a man’s verbal and psychological abuse — name-calling, insults, unjustified legal charges, threats of imprisonment — inviting this man and his buddies to a cozy family gathering.
It simply makes no sense.
Second, make this gathering an authentic celebration of its stated goals. Put the spotlight not on government officials but on those who have stood up for First Amendment rights.
If a big glitzy party is deemed necessary, then take a few cues from another annual event that raises money for journalists — the Committee to Protect Journalists gala. Some elements are similar — formal dress, fancy menus, plenty of buzzy schmoozing at a glamorous venue.
At the CPJ dinner, the speakers are those journalists from around the world who have persevered despite being arrested, jailed, or having their lives threatened. Some of the honorees can’t attend because they are in prison or missing. The honorees are certainly not the press-hating government officials in authoritarian countries who have persecuted journalists. Again, that would make no sense at all.
Give the spotlight to those with an impressive track record of standing up for press rights. At last fall’s CPJ gala in New York City, David McCraw, the longtime newsroom lawyer for the New York Times, spoke. His speech was eloquent and moving; you can read it here. (An earlier version of this post misspelled David McCraw’s surname. Apologies!)
For the WHCA’s dinner, this could include government officials on either side of the aisle who have been stalwart defenders of, or advocates for, First Amendment rights. For example, those lawmakers who have introduced or supported legislation to support local news might be recognized, or those who have spoken out in favor of an FCC that is truly impartial and independent, or those who see today’s endless media-giant mergers as a problem for democracy.
You don’t get invited or honored just because you have a particular title. You have to earn your way in by standing up for the actual stated reason for this event.
It was notable that within hours of the shooting, Trump was calling Norah O’Donnell a “disgrace” for reading, on 60 Minutes, the suspect’s alleged manifesto which said, without naming anyone, that he couldn’t “permit a pedophile, rapist and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.”
“Well, I was waiting for you to read that because you’re horrible people,” Trump told O’Donnell. “You should be ashamed of yourself reading that.” (He also insisted he was “totally exonerated,” apparently referring to the references to rape; in the E. Jean Carroll case, Trump was held liable for sexual abuse.) O’Donnell cleverly queried Trump: “Do you think he was referring to you?”
I’m in sympathy with those who noted in disgust that the fear that this event caused the tuxedoed crowd is what school kids around the nation live with every day in our gun-happy culture.
And one more thing: I’m floored by many right-wing accounts that tweeted nearly in unison shortly after the event, all with a single brief message — support for Trump’s White House ballroom. Typical was this from Meghan McCain: “I don’t want to hear one more fucking criticism of Trump’s new ballroom at the White House.” Apparently they got their marching orders. This ballroom is Trump’s obsession.
Here’s a gift link to a related New York Times story: Firm Building Trump’s Ballroom Got a Secret No-Bid Contract for a Nearby Job. Funny how that works.
Readers: What do you think? Do you see a way to salvage this event and turn it to good? Or is it simply time to stick a fork in it, once and for all? What’s your reaction to what happened over the weekend?
On a totally different subject that may provide a respite from the daily madness, I’ll offer a book recommendation. I’ve been thoroughly enjoying Jim Windolf’s “Where the Music Had to Go,” which explores how The Beatles and Bob Dylan influenced, imitated and competed with each other. Windolf’s research is impressive, he got a lot of people to talk, including Paul McCartney at some length. He does a masterful job of connecting seemingly disparate events; and his writing is tight and engaging. If you are someone who can sing the first few words of “Strawberry Fields Forever” or know what comes after “Something is happening but you don’t know what it is,” I can promise you an absorbing read — and a welcome escape. You’ll even learn how the Traveling Wilburys (the late ‘80s band that included both Dylan and George Harrison) came up with their peculiar name.
Finally, I talked with Dahlia Lithwick, before the weekend, for her award-winning podcast, Amicus, about both the DC dinner and the media’s misguided quest to capture the elusive “center.”
Thanks to all of you for caring about journalism and democracy, and thanks so much for your continued support. Welcome to all the newcomers! Find some information about my mission below. And here’s why one reader became a paid subscriber:
My background: I am a Lackawanna, NY native who started my career as a summer intern at the Buffalo News, my hometown daily. After years as a reporter and editor, I was named the paper’s first woman editor in chief in 1999, and ran the 200-person newsroom for almost 13 years. Starting in 2012, I served as the first woman “public editor” of the New York Times — an internal media critic and reader representative — and later was the media columnist for the Washington Post. These days, I write here on Substack, as well as for the Guardian US. I’ve also written two books, taught journalism ethics, and won a few awards, including three for defending First Amendment principles.
The purpose of ‘American Crisis’: My aim is to use this newsletter (it started as a podcast in 2023) to push for the kind of journalism we need for our democracy to function — journalism that is accurate, fair, mission-driven and public-spirited. That means that I point out the media’s flaws and failures when necessary.
What I ask of you: Shortly after Trump’s election in November of 2024, I removed the paywall so that everyone could read and comment. I thought it was important in this dire moment and might be helpful. If you are able to subscribe at $50 a year or $8 a month, or upgrade your unpaid subscription, that will help to support this venture — and keep it going for all. Thank you!
I'm rooting for the fork.
I had the opportunity to attend this once a few years ago and found it to be pretty grotesque. The pre- and post parties put on by media companies cost a pretty penny at a time when so many journalists are being laid off or muzzled by their bosses ostensibly celebrating freedom of the press. Yes the dinner raises money for aspiring journalists but surely there is a better way to do this? It may have started out as a way of coming together for one evening but like many things American, it has become bloated and self-important so I agree with you, time to 86 it and create a whole new fundraiser that truly amplifies freedom of the press without having to hobnob with those who would sooner see the press disintegrate.