I’ve attended the White House correspondent dinner several times over the years while working as a journalist in Washington, DC. The event has always struck me as one of the rare moments when most people in the room acknowledge that, regardless of ideology, we work toward a common goal to preserve and advance American freedom, and our now-250-year-old success story.
For the evening at least, folks can put aside differing views on how best to accomplish that. The dinner functions as a kind of symbolic reset. It is part roast, part reunion, as thousands of people, familiar faces and not-so, enjoy a memorable evening. I hope that this year’s dinner highlights, for those who’ve made bombastic rhetoric a habit, how far our culture has strayed from the civility and professionalism that unites us, regardless of differences.
I was encouraged to see in the hours after the attempted shooting, that many members of the media were clearly shaken, not only by the incident itself, but by the collapse of the usual distance between reporter and event. That shift was visible as they suddenly had perspective on Trump in real time by being a part of the story, not just reporting on it. I think some saw his leadership in a way that is not usually visible through the normal filter of political coverage.
The chairman of the White House Correspondents Association, Weijia Jiang of CBS News, came to the podium emotional and a bit disheveled and said that Trump wanted the show to go on, but couldn’t because of security protocol.
“He will have a briefing at the White House in 30 minutes,” she said to laughter in the room. “That is not a joke.”
Within the hour, media filled the White House briefing room still in tuxedos, or evening gowns topped with a blazer. That evening usually goes until the wee hours of the next day, so the disorientation of suddenly being back on the job was evident in the tone of their questioning, asking about feelings and immediate reactions rather than gotcha policy framing or political strategy. He used the moment to point out the need for a White House ballroom, something many in the room had mocked and criticized.
Suddenly, they were fellow travelers. Leadership in that moment was less about rhetoric and more about pace: how quickly decisions were made, how directly the situation was handled, and how fast the transition was made from crisis back into governance.
“It comes with the territory, and if you want to do a great job… take a look at what’s happened to some of our greatest presidents,” Trump wrote on social media after the attack. “It doesn’t happen to people that don’t do anything… It’s not going to deter me.”
It’s not necessarily ideal for media to be in the foxhole with those they cover, but in this they seemed to bond a bit more with Trump or at least recognize his energy level and leadership.
The choice of the annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner as a target makes this an attack on the First Amendment and raises serious concerns about the broader environment in which a free press operates. It is fundamental to a free press that they are able to gather and speak without fear. Threats of violence will naturally have a chilling effect on speech and operation of a healthy news media.
It also raises a harder question: whether media tolerance for increasingly bombastic and threatening political language has reached its limit. This time it was personal.
For years, rhetoric framing political opponents in existential terms has become routine, particularly from some anti-Trump political figures who describe him as a “threat to democracy.” Former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, now a Democratic US Senate candidate, said in a speech now circulating on social media, “Donald Trump is a significant threat to our democracy and our nation, and we have got to stop him.”
Cooper isn’t alone this week in taking heat for language that may be intended (by some) as political urgency but can take on a different weight when faced with real-world violence. This is not to excuse all leaders as having that intent; there are certainly many leaders and followers within the party who use that messaging with deadly intent.
That said, what stands out to me in this week’s attack is the recalibration. When rhetoric collides with reality, even briefly, it forces a reckoning among members of the media. Is the political language they’ve normalized sustainable, or does it risk eroding the very civic institutions they claim to defend?
