It has been one of the perpetual amusements provided by the news industry of this country: Journalists love to position themselves as brave heroes, willing to charge into embattled scenarios. But what is witnessed instead is their outrage at benign criticisms and being called to account when they deliver blatantly fractured journalism. They are like the Terra Cotta Warriors: appearing stolid and bold, but they crumble at the first instance of resistance.
This is brought up because we see this dichotomy on display this weekend. Friday night, they re-held the annual White House Correspondents Association awards gala. The original attempt at staging the “Nerd Prom” was waylaid mid-ceremony by a charging gunman at the location, so Friday was take-two. President Trump was once again in attendance, and this caused all kinds of shrinking consternation from the media rabble.
That the president’s appearance would be regarded negatively by many sophisticated journos was a given. This was a group that expressed its opposition before the start of the April gala by issuing a letter signed by many obstinate self-important reporters and members of the news community. Nothing displays your bravery like issuing a tersely worded email before anything is even spoken.
SEE: Still Broken: Journos Demand DC Hacks Protest Trump's Appearance at WH Correspondents' Dinner
Now, after the Friday event, which has been overlooked by just about everyone (I was busy in a tavern watching a Savannah Bananas game) there is all manner of negativity about the appearance by President Trump. This is coming off like a bunch of prigs who are in a snit because an unwashed outsider sullied their private club.
At CNN, they set up an online panel to cover the WHCA dinner in real time, with Brian Stelter and Daniel Dale providing caustic commentary. There is little to be found that is more hackneyed than having your banal experts fact-checking jokes at a roast.
@whca
— john sinisgalli (@johnvsinisgalli) July 25, 2026
Horrible Trump @CNN @CalltoActivism pic.twitter.com/CYb2eGqtYW
Peter Baker, of the New York Times delivered his disdain, expressing concern over the First Amendment, for some reason. We are not too clear; is he suggesting the president should not be entitled to free expression??? He then turns soft, as he declares that his outlet does not attend the event, but there is an allowance of sorts if an individual reporter is being awarded at the event. As you can see, this is a dose of convenience on the part of the brave Mr. Baker, who was in attendance during the Biden era.
That position of “We refuse to attend unless we get a trophy” is hardly a firm stand @PeterBakerNYT https://t.co/XWarVTUrml pic.twitter.com/OzULzWD5QA
— Brad Slager: CNN+ Lifetime Subscriber (@MartiniShark) July 26, 2026
Then we have a stalwart correspondent from the Associated Press, Seung Min Kim, who was quote-tweeting contempt from Oliver Darcy’s Status outlet. That these reporters are so bent out of shape about stinging barbs delivered at what has always been traditionally a roast is beyond precious.
“The WHCA sought to reconvene its annual dinner in celebration of press freedom. Instead, it handed Donald Trump a platform to smear the very journalists the organization exists to represent.” https://t.co/Oq5xfBThO2
— Seung Min Kim (@seungminkim) July 25, 2026
These are the journalists who love to say they are like firefighters rushing into a blaze, or, like Scott Pelley, who says being a war correspondent means he served this country. But if you say mean things to them, they wither faster than cotton candy in the rain.
And there is something else to consider.
This is the same group that was mad at the very same president for going after Jimmy Kimmel for some of his vile comments, specifically regarding the Charlie Kirk assassination. The journalists responded with scorn, saying that what Kimmel said were merely jokes and not to be construed any other way. Now today, they are gasping and swooning over jokes delivered at them, once again proving how they are better than the rest of the gentry because they possess twice as many standards.
Based on the reactions from the brave hearts in the press, it is probably offensive of me to point out these contradictions. Holding them to the very standards they profess means I am being an aggressor and attacking their profession. The only thing worse would be for me to joke at their expense; receiving a lecture from humorless scolds is as useless a lesson as taking barbecuing tips from a militant vegan.
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy RedState's conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member