This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/opinion/trump-is-wrong-to-skip-the-white-house-correspondents-dinner.html
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Trump Is Wrong to Skip the White House Correspondents’ Dinner | |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| For four years, I was responsible for President Obama’s monologue at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner. During those years, a growing number of critics argued that the dinner — with its celebrity guests and expanding galaxy of pre- and after-parties — had jumped the shark. | For four years, I was responsible for President Obama’s monologue at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner. During those years, a growing number of critics argued that the dinner — with its celebrity guests and expanding galaxy of pre- and after-parties — had jumped the shark. |
| Now that I no longer write jokes for the president, I’m free to admit the critics have a point. The correspondents’ dinner has become, in a word, gross. The competition to see which news outlets can score the biggest stars. The government officials walking the red carpet. The lengths some people will go to (heck, the lengths I discovered I was willing to go) to be invited to a morning-of brunch. | Now that I no longer write jokes for the president, I’m free to admit the critics have a point. The correspondents’ dinner has become, in a word, gross. The competition to see which news outlets can score the biggest stars. The government officials walking the red carpet. The lengths some people will go to (heck, the lengths I discovered I was willing to go) to be invited to a morning-of brunch. |
| Given all this, you might think I was delighted to hear of President Trump’s decision, announced on Saturday, to turn down the annual invite. Good riddance! It’s about time! In fact, however, it’s just the opposite. President Trump’s decision to skip this year’s event is a reminder that, for all its excesses, the correspondents’ dinner still matters. | Given all this, you might think I was delighted to hear of President Trump’s decision, announced on Saturday, to turn down the annual invite. Good riddance! It’s about time! In fact, however, it’s just the opposite. President Trump’s decision to skip this year’s event is a reminder that, for all its excesses, the correspondents’ dinner still matters. |
| As a joke writer for the leader of the free world, the most important part of my job was also the least glamorous: Self-deprecation. “I will not be a perfect president,” admitted then-candidate Barack Obama in 2008. As president, he was willing to joke about those imperfections, from his sliding poll numbers (in 2010), to his reputation for acting professorial (2011), to his rapid aging (2012, 2013, 2015, 2016). “Now that’s not even funny,” the commander-in-chief once remarked, after we suggested he would resemble Morgan Freeman by the end of his second term. | As a joke writer for the leader of the free world, the most important part of my job was also the least glamorous: Self-deprecation. “I will not be a perfect president,” admitted then-candidate Barack Obama in 2008. As president, he was willing to joke about those imperfections, from his sliding poll numbers (in 2010), to his reputation for acting professorial (2011), to his rapid aging (2012, 2013, 2015, 2016). “Now that’s not even funny,” the commander-in-chief once remarked, after we suggested he would resemble Morgan Freeman by the end of his second term. |
| He used the joke anyway. Because President Obama understood that there’s a reason self-deprecating humor is a correspondents’-dinner staple. Let other nations’ leaders cast themselves as flawless demigods, towering over the mere mortals they control. In America, we expect our chief executives to poke fun at themselves on live TV. Our leaders must acknowledge that, despite their awesome power, they are only human. The audience demands it. In a small way, democracy demands it as well. | He used the joke anyway. Because President Obama understood that there’s a reason self-deprecating humor is a correspondents’-dinner staple. Let other nations’ leaders cast themselves as flawless demigods, towering over the mere mortals they control. In America, we expect our chief executives to poke fun at themselves on live TV. Our leaders must acknowledge that, despite their awesome power, they are only human. The audience demands it. In a small way, democracy demands it as well. |
| Of course, it’s not just the president who gets to take the president down a peg. The correspondents’ dinner features a headliner, a professional comedian, who almost always takes at least a few shots at the most powerful person on Earth. The most famous example of this occurred in 2006, when Stephen Colbert thoroughly ridiculed President George W. Bush, who was sitting mere feet away. I doubt President Bush enjoyed being roasted. Still, he forced a smile. He knew (or at least pretended) that the joking was in good fun. | Of course, it’s not just the president who gets to take the president down a peg. The correspondents’ dinner features a headliner, a professional comedian, who almost always takes at least a few shots at the most powerful person on Earth. The most famous example of this occurred in 2006, when Stephen Colbert thoroughly ridiculed President George W. Bush, who was sitting mere feet away. I doubt President Bush enjoyed being roasted. Still, he forced a smile. He knew (or at least pretended) that the joking was in good fun. |
| Because that’s another remarkably democratic correspondents’-dinner tradition: the commander-in-chief of the world’s most powerful military, the person with the nuclear codes, publicly submits to being teased. | Because that’s another remarkably democratic correspondents’-dinner tradition: the commander-in-chief of the world’s most powerful military, the person with the nuclear codes, publicly submits to being teased. |
| In America, we take it for granted that our presidents can be ridiculed to their faces with impunity. After all, we don’t work for them; they work for us. But this attitude is part of what makes us exceptional. In countries like Russia or China, would-be Colberts are more likely to end up in prison than on top of late-night TV. | In America, we take it for granted that our presidents can be ridiculed to their faces with impunity. After all, we don’t work for them; they work for us. But this attitude is part of what makes us exceptional. In countries like Russia or China, would-be Colberts are more likely to end up in prison than on top of late-night TV. |
| A public display of humility, however, is only one time-honored aspect of a traditional correspondents’ dinner monologue. There is also what we referred to as “truth-telling.” In plain English, this meant the president got to mock the parts of Washington he felt deserved it. In the Obama White House, our team of joke writers relished truth-telling. Cable news networks. Republicans in Congress. Dick Cheney. At onetime or another, all of them became rhetorical punching bags. | A public display of humility, however, is only one time-honored aspect of a traditional correspondents’ dinner monologue. There is also what we referred to as “truth-telling.” In plain English, this meant the president got to mock the parts of Washington he felt deserved it. In the Obama White House, our team of joke writers relished truth-telling. Cable news networks. Republicans in Congress. Dick Cheney. At onetime or another, all of them became rhetorical punching bags. |
| Yet the president’s eagerness to let loose one night each year only highlights the restraint he practiced the other 364. I have no doubt there are multiple occasions on which he would have loved to tee off indiscriminately on Senator Mitch McConnell, or Republican megadonor Sheldon Adelson, or journalists he felt were unfair. But he didn’t. Understanding the power of his words — and the dignity of his office — President Obama saved his edgiest material for the proper place and time. By breaking the unwritten codes of conduct for a night, it emphasized the importance of adhering to them in the morning. | Yet the president’s eagerness to let loose one night each year only highlights the restraint he practiced the other 364. I have no doubt there are multiple occasions on which he would have loved to tee off indiscriminately on Senator Mitch McConnell, or Republican megadonor Sheldon Adelson, or journalists he felt were unfair. But he didn’t. Understanding the power of his words — and the dignity of his office — President Obama saved his edgiest material for the proper place and time. By breaking the unwritten codes of conduct for a night, it emphasized the importance of adhering to them in the morning. |
| There is one final element to a correspondents’ dinner speech. The “serious close.” It’s no secret that President Obama, like all chief executives, was frequently annoyed with the news media. Yet each year, after about 15 minutes of jokes, he took time to publicly extol the importance of a free press. | There is one final element to a correspondents’ dinner speech. The “serious close.” It’s no secret that President Obama, like all chief executives, was frequently annoyed with the news media. Yet each year, after about 15 minutes of jokes, he took time to publicly extol the importance of a free press. |
| “We are lucky,” said the president, “To live in a country where reporters can give a head of state a hard time on a daily basis.” | “We are lucky,” said the president, “To live in a country where reporters can give a head of state a hard time on a daily basis.” |
| Like nearly every commander-in-chief before him, President Obama understood that the adversarial relationship between an administration and the reporters who cover it does not make the press the enemy. The correspondents’ dinner was a détente rooted in shared values, an opportunity to recognize that our country is better off when both journalists and presidents fulfill the responsibilities they bear. And all Americans — chief executives included — are freer and safer thanks to an independent press. | Like nearly every commander-in-chief before him, President Obama understood that the adversarial relationship between an administration and the reporters who cover it does not make the press the enemy. The correspondents’ dinner was a détente rooted in shared values, an opportunity to recognize that our country is better off when both journalists and presidents fulfill the responsibilities they bear. And all Americans — chief executives included — are freer and safer thanks to an independent press. |
| So put aside, for just a moment, the grossness of the modern-day correspondents’ dinner. Forget the fawning over celebrities, the name-dropping, the unseemliness of serious journalists and White House staffers (again, myself included) groveling for invitations. At its heart, the dinner is still a tribute to the values that make America great. Just by showing up, the world’s most powerful person makes a statement about the kind of country — and president — we have. | So put aside, for just a moment, the grossness of the modern-day correspondents’ dinner. Forget the fawning over celebrities, the name-dropping, the unseemliness of serious journalists and White House staffers (again, myself included) groveling for invitations. At its heart, the dinner is still a tribute to the values that make America great. Just by showing up, the world’s most powerful person makes a statement about the kind of country — and president — we have. |
| And by not showing up? Well, that makes a statement, too. | And by not showing up? Well, that makes a statement, too. |