The predictable disgrace of the White House Correspondents Dinner

And why I reject every specious argument that encourages the media to keep normalizing Trump

The insults. The lies. The extremely unfunny attempts at humor.

The lack of respect for the role of the free press. The lack of respect for the U.S. Constitution, which forbids a Trump run for president in 2028. The lack of respect for the rule of law.

Kaitlan Collins, here attending the earlier, abbreviated White House Correspondents Dinner, was one target of Trump’s cruel and personal attacks on Friday / Getty Images

Any one of these should have been reason enough not to invite Donald Trump to the rescheduled White House Correspondents Dinner, which is billed as an annual celebration of the First Amendment.

But for reasons that continue to baffle and anger me, the organizers — journalists and media figures who should know better — did so anyway.

What happened was predictable. Tom Jones of Poynter correctly forecast that it would be “a complete clown show.” It was.

“What unfolded Friday night inside that gaudy, former Trump hotel ballroom was a monstrosity,” as Jim Acosta, formerly of CNN, now writing on Substack, put it.

Trump used his time on the stage that had been made available by the correspondents association — during a nationally televised event — to let loose with a hate-filled rant. It was aimed at journalists, at his political enemies and at anybody else who has failed to suck up to him at every moment or to support his lawless regime.

As Jon Passantino of Status reported it, Trump told the room of journalists that “this is the largest gathering of people with Trump derangement syndrome,” and then went on to trash the “fake news” media, mock the “failing New York Times,” go after Kaitlan Collins with an ugly personal attack, call Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker a “fat pig” and tell Rep. Ilhan Omar to “get out of our country.” There was much, much more, of course. More than an hour’s worth.

---

---

Why did the association allow such a shameful thing to happen?

Part of the reason is that their corporate bosses wanted them to for reasons having to do with profits and other commercial interests.

Part of the reason is fear of losing access to the White House. No more showcase moments when a question from, say, ABC or NBC is asked in the briefing room and shown on national TV that night.

But since those reasons can’t be said aloud, apparently, the given reason is a different one.

The given reason comes down to this: Well, it’s because he’s the president! Because he’s the president, so the rationale goes, we must treat him the way we’ve treated other presidents.

This argument, so well accepted in mainstream-media circles, is hogwash. It is the very essence of normalizing an extremely abnormal and dangerous president.

Similarly, because he’s the president, some in the media found it necessary to air his recent primetime address to the nation live and uninterrupted. “It’s newsworthy,” said anchors and editors and other major newsroom decision-makers. Because he’s the president.

Because he’s the president, what he does supposedly commands respect — “respect for the office” — and because he’s the president, his political diatribes are treated as legitimate news.

Trump has forfeited that built-in respect in countless ways and over many years.

And the journalists who cover him on a daily basis should know that better than anyone.

It’s so far past the time when this normalization should have ended that it seems almost absurd to make the argument once again.

Let’s try a small thought experiment. Should respect for the institution of marriage mean that an abused ex-wife should insist that her former husband be invited to, say, the annual 4th of July family party? Or should self-respect mean that she doesn’t create a situation that is predictably abusive?

Sometimes when I make the argument to media people that Trump shouldn’t be covered like other presidents, I get what amounts to a scolding in return. Do you expect us to ignore what he does? Should we not cover him? Should we not show people exactly who he is? Do you want a news blackout?

My answer is simple: Of course that’s not what I’m suggesting. The media can cover Trump without sane-washing, without “both-sidesing,” and without normalizing him.

If he’s threatening to disrupt the midterm elections by calling for a federal emergency, of course that’s a big story. If he’s using the office of the president for personal profit, of course that’s a big story.

I’m not calling for a news blackout on Trump. I’m calling for telling it straight. And without kowtowing to him.

After last Friday’s horrendous dinner speech, journalists did not rise in unison and walk out. They should have.

The new president of the White House Correspondents Association, Jacqui Heinrich of Fox News, was all smiles as she actually embraced Trump. That’s an embarrassment — a stain — that should haunt the rest of her career; I don’t care how much her colleagues in the press personally like her or how many nice things she has to say about the First Amendment.

As for her predecessor, CBS News’s Weijia Jiang?

If she were a real leader, she would not have let this happen on her watch. She (and her colleagues in the organization’s leadership) could have called off the rescheduled dinner; they could have re-envisioned it in a way that actually serves the free press. They could have simply decided not to include Trump or anyone of any party whose disdain for the press is so blatant. At the very least, they could have followed the urging of hundreds of prominent journalists and former journalists who were calling for a strong, unified statement at the dinner that clearly rejected Trump’s attacks on the press — in real time.

None of that happened. Yes, Jiang and others made a few remarks defending the press against attacks. It was pretty weak sauce.

And now the reins are handed over to Heinrich of Fox News, the organization that has been so shamefully complicit, for many years, in promoting Trump’s ambitions and circulating his lies.

This ought to be the last straw in the endless media normalization of Donald Trump. But you can bet that it won’t be.

Please tell me in the comments if you are worried about the midterm elections that are coming up so soon. I want to suggest, if you’re looking for a way to protect the vote, donating to two nonpartisan organizations: Common Cause, which is leading pro-voting state legislative efforts, and Democracy Forward, which is leading many important court battles.

I can’t think of much that’s more important. For two good overviews on this topic, here’s a New York Times story with a gift link, and another from the Guardian.

Readers, thank you so much for your continued support — for reading, for commenting, and for subscribing. It means a great deal. Here’s why one reader became a paid subscriber last week. Please consider doing the same!

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!