The Press Keeps Dining With the Man Who Wants to Destroy It
Tonight, the White House Correspondents Dinner convenes in Washington, a rescheduled affair that was abandoned last year after an armed assailant attempted to assassinate the President and his cabinet. The event is ostensibly a celebration of the First Amendment, the constitutional bulwark protecting press freedom and free speech. Yet the President’s attendance came at a steep price: the traditional comedian host, who would gently roast the administration, was replaced by a magician. It is a fitting metaphor for a relationship that has become both farcical and dangerous.
Why, one must ask, do the leading lights of American journalism continue to break bread with a man who openly calls them “piggy,” labels their work “fake news,” and uses the machinery of government to intimidate them? The answer is not flattering to the profession. It suggests a deference to power that undermines the very principle the dinner claims to honor.
The Attack on Press Freedom Has Never Been More Brazen
The Justice Department is currently in court demanding phone records from New York Times journalists, their spouses, and in one case, a reporter’s mother. The aim is to identify the source of a leak about a story concerning President Trump’s Qatari jet, which lacked the security features needed for safe travel. The story was so obvious that it barely needed telling, yet the administration chose this mundane revelation to launch an unprecedented, antidemocratic, and frankly un-American legal assault.
It is also telling that the administration did not pursue similar subpoenas over the leak of recordings from Situation Room meetings. Presumably, they already know who leaked those. The legal action is not about winning in court; it is about intimidation. As with Trump’s many legal battles against the AP, CBS News, the Wall Street Journal, and the BBC, the process is the punishment. It chills sources, burdens newsrooms, and signals that the price of accountability journalism is personal and professional harassment.
Why Do Journalists Keep Showing Up?
The New York Times has a sensible policy: its journalists do not attend the dinner as guests, but only to cover it as an event. Yet many others will don tuxedos and frocks, share expensive steak and fine wine with a President who treats them as enemies. This is not merely a social choice; it is a political one. It normalizes a relationship that should be adversarial, not convivial.
In a normal world, the reaction to Trump’s behavior would be empty tables and dozens of reporters standing around the walls, covering the spectacle rather than participating in it. The White House Correspondents Association could simply disinvite the President. It has happened before. There is no requirement to host a man who calls your members “piggy” and undermines them at every turn. It would be like the National Association of Electric Cars inviting Jeremy Clarkson to speak at their annual conference.
The Global Contagion of Media Attacks
Trump’s public description of any accountability journalism as “fake news” has proved dangerously attractive to politicians worldwide. Nigel Farage does it. Jeremy Corbyn did it. At a recent CPAC GB event, I was personally described from the stage as the “enemy” for accurately reporting what was happening there. The tactic is simple: delegitimize the messenger to discredit the message. It works because it taps into populist resentment and erodes trust in institutions.
For liberal democrats, this should be a red line. A free press is not a luxury; it is the oxygen of democratic accountability. When journalists accept dinner invitations from a President who uses the Justice Department to subpoena their mothers, they are not just attending a party. They are signaling that the abuse is tolerable. It is not.
A Simple Solution: Don’t Invite Him
The Nobel Committee managed not to invite Trump. The worst that happened was that he got upset. The White House Correspondents Association could do the same. If they did, the President might rage on social media, but the press would regain a measure of dignity and independence. The dinner could celebrate the First Amendment without the man who wants to shred it sitting at the head table.
Until then, every journalist who dines with Trump is complicit in the charade. The choice is clear: report on power, or break bread with it. You cannot do both.
Photo: Mirror