Press dinner needs less of Hollywood


The annual White House Correspondent’s Association Dinner took place Saturday in Washington D.C. Despite the mostly lighthearted commentary of President Barack Obama’s night as comedian-in-chief, however, scathing comments by former Alaska governor Sarah Palin stood out.

Mollie Berg| Daily Trojan

Mollie Berg | Daily Trojan

 

As celebrities and journalists walked down the red carpet, Palin used her social media accounts to express clear disapproval for the annual dinner. On Twitter, she called it “pathetic,” going on to say: “The rest of America is out there working our asses off while these DC assclowns throw themselves a #nerdprom.”

Though unsurprisingly inflammatory and subpar in their eloquence, Palin’s comments might actually have some logic to them. During a time of national paranoia following the attacks in Boston and economic struggles throughout the country, the extravagance and seeming whimsy of the WHCA dinner hardly seem necessary, let alone appropriate.

Originally formed by President Woodrow Wilson in 1914, the White House Correspondents’ Association was created as a way to facilitate relations between the White House and the media. As the WHCA’s website explains, the main goal of the association is “the promotion of the interests of those reporters and correspondents assigned to cover the White House.”

Over time, however, the dinner has become a star-studded spectacle, with press associations bringing along actors and actresses all the way from Hollywood for a night of comedy. This year, Conan O’Brien hosted the event and celebrities including Gerard Butler and Sofia Vergara attended. As well-known as these stars might be, their relevance to White House press relations remains somewhat of a mystery.

Of course, maintaining openness between the government and the journalists that work for public transparency is very important in any democratic nation.

Additionally, arguments that the WHCA dinner is a waste of taxpayer dollars are essentially moot, considering that it is a privately funded event. Not to mention, one of the main outcomes of the evening is a new cache of scholarship money for up-and-coming young journalists — each year, more than $100,000 is raised for the cause, according to the WHCA.

The dinner itself is not the problem since it is, in fact, a great way to foster relations between the press and the president in addition to helping aspiring young journalists get their starts.

Unnecessary celebrity attendance is the actual problem. There is obviously nothing wrong with some joking around as a break from the political infighting of Washington and the sobering headlines in the news, but to bring in people that have arguably no relevance in the sphere of politics or political reporting distracts from the point of the evening.

The coziness between Hollywood and Washington, though entertaining, has been endlessly frustrating for many who see celebrities as opportunistic figureheads without any real political knowledge or relevance.

To claim that there is any true benefit from an intersection between the realms of entertainment and politics is to aggrandize the former’s impact on national affairs and delegitimize the latter’s seriousness.

Political advocacy by private citizens, not by the almost uniformly left-leaning stars of Hollywood, is what should be encouraged. Continuing to treat these stars as special despite what can only be called insignificance in the political sphere is a mistake and distracts from the real issues at hand.

Hollywood and its elite are undoubtedly part of what make America great, not to mention entertaining. But its influence does not belong in politics, much less press coverage of politics, and the WHCA dinner should be re-purposed to reflect this fact. Then, people like Palin can move on to make entertaining commentary on the real political issues.

 

Sarah Cueva is a junior majoring in Middle East studies and political science. Her column “Homeland” ran Wednesdays.

 
5 replies
  1. AM
    AM says:

    Ms. Cueva’s point might be worth exploring, but the article itself is riddled with logical fallacies.

    Her argument that the Hollywood media has no business in politics is unsubstantiated in her article. We are left begging the question as to why she thinks that Hollywood media is such a problem.

    “To claim that there is any true benefit from an intersection between the realms of entertainment and politics is to aggrandize the former’s impact on national affairs and delegitimize the latter’s seriousness.” Why does the entertainment business have no legitimate role in politics? Well, to claim to the contrary, according to Ms. Cueva, is simply the “delegitimize [politic]’s seriousness.” Why? Well, the article is silent.

    I personally believe that we should re-evaluate our definition of media, for surely Hollywood actors are part of the media as well–they are in the public sphere, and they comment on politics directly and through specific choices when it comes to what they produce artistically. Why should the media be strictly defined as newspaper writers and the like?

    If she can demonstrate that the entertainment business is really so far removed from politics so as to make the WHCA dinner a sham, then it would have been an interesting article. But until then, the article is empty rhetoric.

  2. Trojan Alum
    Trojan Alum says:

    Who cares what Palin thinks? The woman served half a term as governor and made an utter fool of herself running for VP. She has no expertise in anything and just says/tweets things to get attention or a rise out of people.

  3. Willie Heath
    Willie Heath says:

    After an astute observation of Sarah Palins calling out the elite in their America burns while Obama and the Media fiddles, you still get in a shot at Sarah Palin in your” subpar in their eloquence” comment. Sarah Palin through that Tweet reached many folks, she speaks for the common man/woman, and blogs were buzzing for several days after, so it proves she hit the target. I commend you for paying attention and writing about it, keep it up.

    Willie Heath

  4. Freempg
    Freempg says:

    Ms. Cueva,

    Cluttering your otherwise exceptional writing with a pedantic phrase like “subpar in their eloquence” detracts from your point. It has become a tiresome technique, a trite device, that should anything positive be said about Sarah Palin that something negative must neutralize it. Be confident in your opinions.

    Much success,

    Freempg

    • Freempg
      Freempg says:

      PS:

      You may want to Google what writing analysts determined after reviewing nearly 30,000 of Governor Palin’s emails which were released on a freedom of information request (I know you were referencing a tweet, but just in case you have an interest; and those cited below are Democrat analysts), here’s an excerpt:

      “It turns out Palin’s writing skills are better than most educated Americans. Global Language Monitor gave Palin’s emails a score of 8.2, which actually exceeds that of most chief executives. “She’s very concise. She gives clear orders. Her sentences and punctuations are logical,” said Paul Payack of GLS. “She has much more of a disciplined mind than she’s given credit for.”

      “John Katzman, CEO of another company, 2tor, gave Palin a score of 8.5. He said the potential presidential candidate’s emails scored higher than his own, when based on the widely-used Flesch-Kincaid readability test.

      “But what do the scores actually mean? Payack offered Abraham Lincoln’s ‘Gettyburg Address’ and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s ‘I Have a Dream’ speech as points of comparison. They earned scores of 9.1 and 8.8, respectively.”

Comments are closed.