Commentary: White House Correspondents' Association To Celebrate Journalism By Forgetting What It Means

One of the unfortunate consequences of the past twenty years is that there is now a belief that the mere act of reporting something uncomplimentary to Republicans is by its very nature "partisan." There is positive news - which is the truth - and then there is the obviously fake, very partisan less than positive reporting.

And that belief has expanded from the conservative news media ranks to a number of media industry executive suites. CNN executives have very publicly discussed their desire to be seen as what they describe as "non-partisan." But what that has translated to in practice has been a reduction in uncomplimentary coverage of the Trump Administration, which also adding more pro-Trump voices to yell at the other panelists during its news coverage.

This is an increasingly common move in media and journalism. And it seems to be driven by the belief that if you pre-censor your actions, your critics will be less likely to criticize you.

From newspaper owners spiking op-ed pieces that criticize the Trump Administration to large, profitable legal firms apologizing for participating in lawsuits against Donald Trump, America's institutions have sadly illustrated the old axiom that "morality is fine, but it won't pay the bills." Entirely too many institutions have made the calculation that the only way to survive the Trump Presidency is to give up the very beliefs that made them successful in the first place. All in service of cashing another paycheck and retaining whatever marginal influence they have left. While they tell themselves that while they folded this time, they'll stand up against tyranny when it's "really important."

However, if we have learned anything in the past few years, it's that surrendering ahead of time never accomplishes what you hope it will. Critics sense weakness and are emboldened to push their criticisms to new levels. Whether you are Columbia University or The Walt Disney Company, giving in just means that a few weeks or months down the line, you'll be asked to give up more.

All of which brings me to increasingly hapless White House Correspondents Association (WHCA), which has suffered as catastrophic a collapse in influence and credibility in recent weeks as I have seen from any organization. And the heads of the organization still seem incapable of realizing that whatever times we are living in now, they are not normal and it is journalistic malpractice to think otherwise.

According to the organization, it's prime function is to "advocate for all of our members so that they have what they need to be able to convey an accurate impression of what is happening at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Whether they tell stories through television images, photographs, sound on the radio, or text, the WHCA works with their interests – and those of their viewers, readers and listeners – at heart." The WHCA also holds an annual White House Correspondent's dinner, which is part fundraiser and part opportunity for national journalists and various celebrities to hang out together for an evening that has become increasingly less useful in recent years.

I don't think it's hyperbole to argue the WHCA is as irrelevant now as it has been at anytime in existence. One of its roles is to vet journalists who want to cover the White House and decide which reporters will be part of the White House Press Pool, the small group of reporters who travel with the President and are able to ask him questions in whatever gaggles or unplanned opportunities become available.

But in recent weeks, the White House has essentially taken over the role, barring some organizations such as The Associated Press and Reuters from participating in the press pool, while providing access to favored conservative news outlets and podcasters. And while I'm fine widening the scope of political beliefs reflected in the White House Press Pool, listening to a podcaster ask the President his explanation for how he has accomplished so many good things for America in just three months saddens me on such a visceral level. That isn't journalism, that's fan service and it's also clearly what The White House is looking for in a pool press reporter.

The annual White House Correspondents' Dinner is coming up at the end of April and the WHCA apparently felt they had a problem with the announced headliner, comedian Amber Ruffin. 

She had been booked as the headliner two months ago, but the WHCA board seems to have been regretting that decision. In a Daily Beast podcast earlier this week, Ruffin explained that she had been having some disagreements with board members over what jokes she might tell at the dinner:

“They were like, ‘you need to be equal and make sure that you give it to both sides,’ and I was like, ‘there’s no way I’m going to be freaking doing that,‘” she said. “Under no circumstances.”

On Saturday, WHCA president Eugene Daniels sent an email out to the WCHA members, announcing Ruffin had been removed as headliner for this year's dinner:



"The politics of division...." It is an ironic turn of the phrase, coming at a time when the current Administration is targeting news organizations and individual journalists for investigation. When media companies such as Comcast, PBS, NPR and Disney are being investigated because the Trump Administration argues they might secretly be supportive of diversity. I think the "politics of division" ship has already sailed.

It's fine if the WHCA decided that maybe having a comedian come in and poke the bear isn't the best way to resolve the current issues between the White House and the organization. If you want to highlight journalism, then do it. Replace Ruffin with a speech by the head of The Associated Press. Or some other relevant journalist who is able to make the case for journalism - especially in these difficult times.

Instead, the way this move was announced not only made the WHCA appear as if it was bending the knee to Donald Trump, it provided an easy way for conservative media types to spend much of Saturday crowing that they had been able to get the WHCA to back down.

I realize that at the end of the day, the WHCA doesn't want to get into an all-out war with conservative media. But honestly, I don't think there is anything they can do to prevent that from happening. So if the WHCA really is interested in encouraging the next generation of journalists, maybe they should start by showing them what it takes to stand up to tyrants.