Why does the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner continue? And why doesn't some scrupulous editor (I know, I know) finally just forbid his or her employees from going to this sham?
Once again, the annual Capitol Hill black-tie kissy-kissy dinner is an ethical mess, and it hasn't even happened yet. Like last year, the problem is the entertainment. Last year, it was Stephen Colbert who caused the controversy. This year, it's...Rich Little, which is kinda like going from Nirvana to the King Family.
Of course, Little was hired simply because Colbert was such a controversial choice last year...and, of course, the head of the Correspondents' Association is denying it:
Organizers admitted they wanted a somewhat more "safe" choice after last year's subversive routine by Stephen Colbert, which took direct satiric aim at the Iraq war and President Bush (who sat nearby).
But how safe? The Las Vegas Review-Journal now reports that Little claimed he did not plan to even mention Iraq or to attack the president, implying that these were the wishes of the inviters. But Steve Scully, president of the White House Correspondents Association, told E&P Friday that the organization never asked Little to avoid subjects like Iraq or back off criticism of President Bush.
The Las Vegas paper had reported that Little said organizers of the event made it clear they don't want a repeat of last year's controversial appearance by Colbert. "They got a lot of letters," Little said. "I won't even mention the word Iraq....They don't want anyone knocking the president. He's really over the coals right now, and he's worried about his legacy."
But Scully, a senior produce at C-SPAN, replied: "I cannot be more clear that we never mentioned Iraq, we never gave him any guidelines. The only thing we told him is that we want to follow the policy of the Gridiron Dinner, which is 'singe, don’t burn'."
Why don't they get it? The only thing being 'singed' here is the credibility of the White House press corps, and the credibility of journalists in general.
Years ago, I worked for a newspaper that was so stringent on public displays of partisanship that the office code forbade partisan bumper stickers. Not just political ones, but also issue-oriented stickers. No Planned Parenthood. No Operation Rescue. Most staffers didn't even feel comfortable with something as simple as a peace sign or an American flag, so they didn't put anything on their cars. Which was fine.
So why is it acceptable for people who cover Capitol Hill to break bread with the men and women they cover?
You'd think they would've learned something from last year's debacle, during which Colbert Ginsu-ed the press corps with as much finesse as he did the politicos. But no; in an online chat this week, The Washington Post's Congressional reporter, Jonathan Weisman, had this to say:
Oh please, it's a party. If you want to criticize, critique what you see (or don't see) in the newspaper or on television news, not what reporters do in their free time.
Oh, please, yourself, Mr. Weisman. When you're sitting down and yukking it up with the very people you're supposed to scrutinize, that's not your "free time." And it doesn't exactly inspire public confidence. You're certainly aware of the presidential approval ratings; have you seen the approval ratings for the press corps lately?
At a time when Congress is attempting (however maladroitly) to impose its own ethical reform, why don't journalists try to do the same?
Comments