To the extent that we need the WHCD for anything, it\u2019s so we can still live in a country with so much freedom of speech that comedians can mock the president right in front of his face. And at times the dinner has produced historically consequential moments, such as in 2006 when Stephen Colbert satirically scolded both George W. Bush\u2019s invasion of Iraq and the press corps timid coverage of it, and in 2011 when both Barack Obama and Seth Meyers lampooned the idea of Trump running for president, which some claim gave Trump the motivation<\/a> to run in 2016 as revenge. But for the most part, the event, not-so-lovingly dubbed \u201cNerd Prom,\u201d is just fun.<\/p>\n The Poynter Institute\u2019s Kelly McBride<\/a>, a WHCD critic, contends the dinner\u2019s stated goals \u201ccould be accomplished without the cringy optics of elevating journalists to the same elite status as the powerbrokers who run Washington, D.C., and the rest of the world.\u201d I part ways with McBride\u2019s last point. The dinner may be unnecessary from a fundraising standpoint, but it doesn\u2019t confer a special gold-card status of eliteness shared by White House correspondents and occupants.<\/p>\n Neither do I buy McBride\u2019s corollary argument that the dinner \u201cputs journalists in the same comfortable class as those who, because of money and connections, can dodge the harsh realities of life faced by the masses.\u201d Washington journalists who make a lot of money and run in influential circles (and, if I may stress, I am not describing myself!) did not achieve their station because of the dinner, and the demise of the dinner would not change their salaries nor their social circles. Moreover, journalists should not be obligated to live lean lives (though many do!) to perform their jobs.<\/p>\n Go to any capital city at a national or state level, and you will find government officials and journalists living in the same community, sending kids to the same schools, and attending some of the same social gatherings. As Deggans observes, \u201cWashington, D.C. journalists often are running in the same circles as high-powered politicos. There are much lower profile parties where the same kind of crowds are gathering to have the same kinds of discussions about the state of politics and media.\u201d Journalists have an ethical obligation not to let any personal interactions interfere with their reporting, but they should be judged on their reporting, not on their ability to avoid small talk at parties.<\/p>\n Where I side with McBride over Deggans is in opposition to the WHCA\u2019s decision to continue inviting Donald Trump. A fundraising event<\/a> to support \u201cprograms to educate the public and the value of the First Amendment and a free press\u201d should not have a featured speaker who is the biggest peacetime threat to the First Amendment and a free press in American history.<\/p>\n McBride interviewed a WHCA member who claimed, \u201cThe dinner isn\u2019t about the president, it\u2019s about the press corps. If the president chooses to come, great, we\u2019re happy to have a president come and help celebrate a free press.\u201d McBride\u2019s response hit the mark:<\/p>\n If that\u2019s truly the case, then it would have been easy to simply stop inviting the president after Trump\u2019s first term, [during which] he declined the invitation \u2026 If it wasn\u2019t about the president, the White House Correspondents\u2019 Association wouldn\u2019t have disinvited comedian Amber Ruffin last year after she called the president and his cabinet \u201ckind of a bunch of murderers\u201d on a podcast. Trump boycotted last year\u2019s dinner anyway.<\/p>\n Moreover, the WHCA has reconfigured the event to make it more to Trump\u2019s liking, chucking the comedian slot and, instead, naming as headliner Oz Pearlman, described by The New York Times as the \u201cmanosphere\u2019s favorite magician<\/a>.\u201d Pearlman is a mentalist who creates the perception of mind-reading. Last year, the Times\u2019 John Hendrickson interviewed Pearlman for a profile to learn more about his methods:<\/p>\n \u201cWhat does a magician do?\u201d he asked. \u201cYou shuffle the cards, you give them back to me, and I know where the aces are. Is that cheating? Absolutely that\u2019s cheating. Am I doing it at a card table where it\u2019s illegal? No.\u201d<\/p>\n Mr. Pearlman argued that he relied on embellishment and \u201cpartial truths\u201d to make his mentalism engaging \u2014 and to contour a participant\u2019s memory of a miraculous event.<\/p>\n \u201cIn essence, all we\u2019re doing is cheating,\u201d he said of himself and his peers. \u201cWe\u2019re using subterfuge, secret methods, ways to deceive you, right? But we\u2019re doing it in an ethical way.\u201d<\/p>\n A master of embellishment and partial truths is the perfect entertainment choice to venerate Donald Trump. But not the free press.<\/p>\n Deggans, sheepishly (\u201cI know I\u2019m probably too idealistic in my thinking,\u201d he prefaced), made the case for inviting Trump:<\/p>\n From my perspective, the problem isn\u2019t a tony dinner bringing together journalists and politicians, including a President who has often attacked the press. The challenge is making sure that what happens once the dinner starts isn\u2019t about normalizing those attacks, but showing the President and other politicos the importance of a free press which scrupulously covers his administration, upholding democracy in the process.<\/p>\n Deggans is correct. He is too idealistic. There is nothing to be gained by \u201cshowing the President and other politicos the importance of a free press\u201d when the president is exerting state control over the press. He has employed litigation and threats from the FCC chair to selectively apply<\/a> the equal time rule and revoke broadcast licenses<\/a> over their war coverage, and threats from himself to imprison war correspondents<\/a>. He has openly sought to determine the ownership of CNN by meddling<\/a> in the sale of CNN\u2019s parent company. A federal judge has twice ruled that the Defense Department is unconstitutionally restricting<\/a> press access to administration-friendly reporters. A nice speech about the First Amendment while Trump is on the dais won\u2019t magically change his ways. (Though maybe Pearlman has a magic trick up his sleeve.)<\/p>\n Speaking of CNN, the network\u2019s media correspondent, Brian Stelter, is attending the dinner and has made a defense for going in his Reliable Sources newsletter<\/a>. He interviewed the WHCA president and CBS White House correspondent Weijia Jiang. The arguments they made are both limp and revealing:<\/p>\n \u201cI answer to my members,\u201d she said. And none of them, Jiang said, have complained to her about Trump\u2019s attendance at the dinner. Some view it as a positive development, given his past boycotts. Reporters \u201care looking forward to the president\u2019s attendance,\u201d Jiang said. \u201cWe cover the White House,\u201d she added. \u201cAnd when you cover any subject, you want to be around your subject.\u201d <\/p>\n \u2026<\/p>\n Some analysts have speculated that Trump accepted the invite this year to spike the football in front of a defeated press corps. No one knows how long he\u2019ll talk or what he\u2019ll say. However, there\u2019s a strong counterargument that Trump\u2019s attendance is a concession of sorts\u2014an acknowledgment of the press corps\u2019 enduring power.<\/p>\n Journalists selling this argument are either deluding themselves or gaslighting the rest of us. Trump attending a dinner that used to roast the president but now features hacky magic tricks is not him bowing to the press corps, but literally the opposite.<\/p>\n Stelter did tacitly challenge Jiang\u2019s contention that White House reporters simply have a professional desire to \u201cbe around your subject.\u201d He noted, \u201cTrump is arguably even more accessible to the press corps in his second term, now that so many reporters have his cell phone number. But accessibility has rarely been the problem. Accuracy, consistency, decency \u2014 those have been the problems.\u201d Yes, and it\u2019s the White House press corps job to show how Trump is deliberately attacking the press\u2019s credibility\u2014\u201cFake news!\u201d\u2014to make it impossible for media consumers to know what\u2019s accurate and what isn\u2019t. Putting him on stage for a supposed celebration of the First Amendment further confuses the public and runs counter to that obligation.<\/p>\n Yet Stelter suggests that \u201cto not [emphasis original] invite Trump would make the WHCA a political actor and likely weaken its efforts to keep open, productive lines of communication with the White House.\u201d This is nonsense. Trump talks to White House reporters\u2014and apparently anyone who calls his cell phone<\/a>\u2014because he loves talking to the press. One rescinded dinner invitation won\u2019t change that. And if it did, so what? When a notoriously dishonest president clams up, that\u2019s no great loss. Journalists still can pursue stories through other means\u2014most likely with the help of his palace court of backstabbing leakers.<\/p>\n More than 250 journalists<\/a> on Monday sent a letter<\/a> to WHCA members and leaders urging them to make a strong statement at the dinner \u201cfrom the podium\u201d with a \u201cforceful defense of freedom of the press and condemnation of those who threaten that freedom.\u201d But unless such a statement names Donald Trump as one who deserves that condemnation, any such protest would miss the mark by a mile. His presence muddies any free-press message unless it\u2019s held up as an example of the threat to a free press.<\/p>\n If the WHCA were willing to level a frontal challenge to Trump, that would be almost as much fun to watch as a good roast. So, the part of me that loves good TV would vote for that. But I can\u2019t expect those covering the White House and aiming to do so neutrally and objectively to wage a provocative protest.<\/p>\n I am not a virulent critic of the White House press corps. I think many White House correspondents get a bad rap. I understand that they must maintain a degree of access to unearth what is happening behind the scenes, and we know a huge amount about what is happening because of their good work. Yet to go forward with the WHCD without any public naming of Trump\u2019s free speech violations is whitewashing, making these correspondents accessories to his constitutional crimes.<\/p>\n The best course of action is to cancel the dinner. Offer ticketholders refunds but remind them their money goes to scholarships and educational programming. In all likelihood, the WHCA will get to keep most of that money without shouldering further shame.<\/p>\n I do not want to see the Nerd Prom canceled forever. But future WHCA boards should not invite Trump. Future featured guests should represent the values of the First Amendment, not subterfuge. And then someone needs to get me a ticket.<\/p>\n \n\tRelated\n<\/p>\n
![\"Our](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/809x289_Liberty_ArticleBottom.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Allow me to make a confession: I\u2019m a fan of the White House Correspondents\u2019\u00a0Dinner (WHCD). I have never…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":18946,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[105,11453,4095,1707,38,11454,624,8,11455,11456,9,11457,1832,369,7,11458,11459,11460,11461],"class_list":{"0":"post-18945","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-top-stories","8":"tag-barack-obama","9":"tag-brian-stelter","10":"tag-cbs","11":"tag-cnn","12":"tag-donald-trump","13":"tag-eric-deggans","14":"tag-george-w-bush","15":"tag-headlines","16":"tag-kelly-mcbride","17":"tag-nerd-prom","18":"tag-news","19":"tag-oz-pearlman","20":"tag-seth-meyers","21":"tag-stephen-colbert","22":"tag-top-stories","23":"tag-weija-jiang","24":"tag-whca","25":"tag-white-house-correspondents-association","26":"tag-white-house-correspondents-dinner"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@news\/116443750334360223","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18945","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18945"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18945\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/18946"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18945"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18945"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18945"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}