Trump right to snub embarrassing media gala

Question: What do Donald Trump, Stephen Harper, Pierre Trudeau, Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter have in common?

Answer: They all boycotted the dinner by their press gallery. Good for them. Trump’s refusal to attend the annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner on Saturday, instead holding a rally in Harrisburg, Penn., to mark his first 100 days in office, brought him in for predictable derision from Washington’s media elites. But really, who cares? The dinner has become an embarrassment to journalism, dominated by elite media inviting Hollywood celebrities to a smug, selfimportant, black tie and evening gown political gala that should have died years ago.

Trump, who attended before becoming president, boycotted it this year because he hates most media, has a thin skin and can’t stand being mocked.

Plus, portraying Washington’s elite journalists as part of “the swamp” he came to drain is part of his political brand as president.

At least give him credit for being honest about his hostile relationship with (most) media.

In Canada, same goes for Harper and Pierre Trudeau, both of whom initially attended the Canadian version — the annual Parliamentary Press Gallery Dinner.

In opposition, Harper went, and was often a hit with his bang-on political impersonations. But he stopped after the Conservatives won power in 2006 and his relationship with the media soured.

Trudeau, whose contempt for most media was legendary, grudgingly attended the annual event for a time, but eventually stopped going, no doubt fed up with, from his perspective, having to suffer fools gladly.

There was a time where these dinners — the U.S. dinner started in 1921 and its Canadian equivalent is even older, dating back to the 19th century — were off the record, where politicians and the journalists who covered them could let down their guards and have some fun.

Perhaps that was worthwhile. Occasionally talking and joking with one another in an informal, off-therecord setting, similar to prime ministers and presidents getting to know one another informally, beyond official meetings and joint press conferences, does have value.

But today, there is zero confidentiality at these events. To the contrary, they are publicized and televised, with the supposed best of the (professionally written) speeches, skits and comedic digs (in the opinion of the media gatekeepers) featured on television, radio and the Internet.

Trump knew if he attended this year, most media would have been out to lynch him — far different, for example, from the often fawning attention his predecessor, Barack Obama, was typically given when he was president.

In the real world, politicians and journalists aren’t supposed to be friends.

Publicly partying together creates the understandable impression for ordinary citizens that they are all part of the same club.

Ideally, their relationship should be one of professional civility, but nothing more.

It shouldn’t be one of the media fawning over politicians most media happen to “like” — for example, Justin Trudeau — while mocking ones they don’t, like Harper.

If presidents and prime ministers — or other politicians — still want to go to these outdated events, that’s their call.

But the events have outlived their time and purpose and they’ve become an embarrassment to journalism.

It’s the media who should end them, rather than fault politicians who, for whatever reason, refuse to go.