With Senior Media Writer, Tom Jones , The Poynter Report
Why?
That was the first thought that popped into my head Tuesday when the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) announced it would reschedule its annual swanky dinner for July 24 in Washington, D.C.
When the WHCA held its dinner back in April, it was abruptly cut short when a shooter tried to enter the event and fired on a Secret Service agent, who, fortunately, suffered only minor injuries.
At the time, President Donald Trump, just an invitee and not a host, said he wanted the event rescheduled within 30 days. The WHCA also seemed eager to reschedule the event, but wisely took its time deciding the next steps.
Now, perhaps not as wisely, the WHCA says it’s time to try again.
To her credit, WHCA president Weijia Jiang of CBS News makes a strong case in her announcement, writing, “The White House Correspondents’ Dinner has served as a celebration of a free press and the vital role of journalism in our democracy for over a century. When gunfire interrupted this year’s event, it further clarified the WHCA’s mission to advocate for the freedoms that are protected in the First Amendment. We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word, especially during a year when we are reflecting on the 250th anniversary of America and everything we stand for.”
Jiang admitted it was not an easy decision, saying, “It was a choice that the WHCA board made after thoughtful consideration and input from our members.”
That all sounds admirable. And, we must acknowledge and appreciate that the dinner is a fundraiser for WHCA, as well as a way to celebrate the First Amendment. I also absolutely believe Jiang when she says it was not an easy decision.
Jiang wrote, “This dinner will not only be an opportunity to carry out our program. It will be a statement that violence has no place in American life and a free press will not be intimidated into silence. As you have all demonstrated, courage and community can and should rise above.”
All that sounds commendable — and I mean that sincerely.
However, even before the violence of this year’s event, the WHCA dinner has been, well, icky.
The Washington Post’s Scott Nover wrote, “The dinner, which was first held in 1921, has attracted criticism from some press advocates who lament cozy mingling between journalists and their powerful sources.”
Back in April, just before this year’s original dinner, my Poynter colleague Kelly McBride wrote, “The annual rationalizing that it’s just a show of civility to party with the people one covers doesn’t overcome the public’s skepticism about our independence. What was once (a fairly long time ago) a well-intended night of fundraising and camaraderie among professional adversaries is now simply a bad look.”
Making it even worse is Trump. After boycotting the dinner in all of his previous years as president, Trump decided to attend this year’s event and, from all accounts, planned to give a speech skewering the media. That came as no surprise.
His planned disparaging speech would have been on top of spending the past 10 years undercutting the media, mocking them, threatening them, banning them and even suing them. No president has done more to undermine and sow distrust in the media than this president.
In a Truth Social post on Tuesday, Trump said he plans to attend the dinner, calling its reschedule a “sign of Strength and Fortitude.”
OK, that sounds encouraging.
He continued, “This announcement is a very good thing in that we cannot allow Lunatics to change our way of life, or even its scheduling. I was asked to be there, and speak, by Weijia Jiang, President of The White House Correspondents’ Association, and have accepted.”
And that sounds good, too.
But then he couldn’t help himself, adding, “I don’t know whether or not I will give the same rather nasty statements, at least as it concerns certain people, but we will soon find out. In any event, it will be a ‘HOT’ ticket!”
Even in his post, Trump can’t promise he won’t be nasty — another reason why rescheduling the dinner in its current format seems like a lousy idea.
Steven L. Herman, executive director of the University of Mississippi’s Jordan Center for Journalism Advocacy and Innovation and a former White House bureau chief for Voice of America, told the Post, “Why do I need to pay hundreds of dollars and dress up in a tuxedo to go listen to the president of the United States insult my colleagues. I think he’s made it pretty clear he is not a champion of free speech or the free press. He only likes press or speech when it reflects positively on him.”
Then, sadly, there are concerns of another violent incident.
Jiang said in her announcement, “The event will feature significantly enhanced safety measures and new access procedures.”
Again, wanting to show resiliency and not give in to intimidation or violence, as well as what’s at stake financially, are valid reasons to want to continue the tradition of the WHCA dinner.
Still, the rawness of what just happened in April and the fact that the WHCA dinner has always been somewhat problematic seem reasons enough to not rush back into another dinner so soon. This felt like the time to go back to the drawing board for the rest of the year and really reconsider what the dinner should look like.
