The show will go on: White House correspondents’ dinner rescheduled for July, with Trump attending
Advertisement
Read this article for free:
or
Already have an account? Log in here »
To continue reading, please subscribe:
Digital Subscription
One year of digital access for only $205*
- Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
- Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
- Access News Break, our award-winning app
- Play interactive puzzles
*First annual payment billed as $205.00 + GST for one year. This annual subscription will automatically renew at $233.00 + GST every 52 weeks (10% off the regular annual price of $259.35). Offer available to new and qualified returning subscribers only. Cancel any time.
To continue reading, please subscribe:
Add Free Press access to your Brandon Sun subscription for only an additional
$1 for the first 4 weeks*
- Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
- Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
- Access News Break, our award-winning app
- Play interactive puzzles
*Your next Brandon Sun subscription payment will increase by $1.00 and you will be charged $17.95 plus GST for four weeks. After four weeks, your payment will increase to $24.95 plus GST every four weeks.
Read unlimited articles for free today:
or
Already have an account? Log in here »
NEW YORK (AP) — And now, Take Two: The White House Correspondents’ Association dinner has been rescheduled — with President Donald Trump apparently in attendance.
The dinner, cut short in April by a gunman who prosecutors say was trying to assassinate Trump, will now take place on July 24. It will be a more intimate gathering with “significantly enhanced safety measures and new access procedures,” said Weijia Jiang, president of the White House Correspondents’ Association.
Jiang did not say where the dinner would be held. But Trump, on his Truth Social platform, revealed it would be at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue — former site of the Trump International Hotel.
The president said he’d been invited to return and speak, and had accepted the invitation. He called the rescheduling “a sign of Strength and Fortitude.”
“This announcement is a very good thing in that we cannot allow Lunatics to change our way of life, or even its scheduling,” Trump wrote.
He added he hadn’t decided on whether to give his originally intended speech, in which he was widely expected to attack the press. “I don’t know whether or not I will give the same rather nasty statements, at least as it concerns certain people, but we will soon find out,” he wrote. “In any event, it will be a ‘HOT’ ticket!”
Rescheduling decision took time
Jiang, in her announcement, noted that “rescheduling was not automatic,” and had involved much consideration and input from board members.
She emphasized the dinner’s stated purpose: “a celebration of a free press and the vital role of journalism in our democracy for over a century.”
“We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word, especially during a year when we are reflecting on the 250th anniversary of America and everything we stand for,” Jiang said.
It was not clear how large the rescheduled dinner would be, or whether it would be a full-scale dinner at all. Jiang made reference to a “more intimate gathering” than the original event, attended by close to 3,000 people at the Washington Hilton, but did not give details, saying they’d be shared directly with attendees.
Her remarks were in line with recent speculation that a rescheduled event would have to be pared down, a nod to financial as well as security concerns.
Concern expressed for wounded officer
Jiang also made note of the Secret Service officer who was shot in April and has been recovering. “Our thoughts remain with the officer who was injured and with everyone who experienced that evening,” she said. “We are indebted to the US Secret Service, law enforcement and the hotel staff whose swift response protected our guests and our staff.”
Though Jiang always insisted the dinner should be rescheduled, not everyone felt the same way.
Some critics said they felt it would be a good idea to scuttle the whole event permanently — not only for security reasons, but for what they saw as an unseemly enterprise of journalists hobnobbing in formal wear with the subjects of their reporting.
“It undermines the public faith in how the press does its work, and it makes it look like we are pals with the people we cover,” Kelly McBride, an ethics expert at the Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank, said in May.
