From US News:

The New York Times has recently called an end to allowing its staffers to attend these dinners. That is their call but it seems a little overblown.

Reporters have been dealing with politicians at close range for generations, including those with the Times. Most journalists know where to draw the line and when that line can't be crossed.

So much has been said about the lack of civility in the nation's capital. Columns have been written calling for members of both parties to recognize their differences in a more constructive way.

What is really wrong then with a reporter who has been routinely kicking the stuffing out of politicians, sitting near them one or two nights a year?

The critics should take a deep breath.

When Christopher Hitchens was recently told of the NYT's decision to drop out of the WHCA weekend, he said:

"How did I miss that?" he exclaims. "I'm upset, is my reaction." He explains that he'd wanted Vanity Fair, in whose name he hosts an annual after-party, to be the first to pull out of the dinner.

And VF Executive Director Beth Kseniak says that the magazine is "neither in or out."

(earlier)

From Kenneth Bunting:

Perhaps Lokeman was right. Some journalists manage to transform themselves into Washington socialites at such events. Why should the public think they could be arms-length watchdogs, critics and uncompromised observers at other times?

David said Rove overreacted and started the ballroom ruckus.

"I went over to him and said, 'I urge you to take a new look at global warming.' He went zero to 100 with me ... . I've never had anyone be so rude," she told The Washington Post afterward.

Rove said it was David who escalated the exchange with her rude, angry and insulting manner. Crow reportedly tried to calm the situation, but eventually got into the argument with Rove, as well.

Since the confrontation was somehow missed by the best eyewitnesses news consumers could even hope for, history will never be able to record with certainty whether it was the entertainers or the high-placed presidential aide who caused a scene worthy of a pro wrestling smack down at a notoriously polite D.C. affair.

Maybe who started it and who misbehaved isn't so important. Still, social graces aside, it is regrettable, under the circumstances, that we have to guess at it.

Bunting also makes an interesting point: Was the NYT embarassed because that big Rove v. Crow. v. David saga wasn't reported first in their paper even though Rove was their guest?

It ain't just the WHCA dinner that the New York Times is gonna back out of...the Gridiron may also be on the chopping block.

From Jay Rosen:

It's good news that journalists at the New York Times will no longer participate in the bloated and compromised White House Correspondents Association dinner. Bravo. I await with some curiosity the explanation for what changed in their thinking. So far, nothing.

...

It's a lot easier to say the event has gone Hollywood than it is to engage with Frank Rich's argument at TimesSelect: "for all the recrimination, self-flagellation and reforms that followed" from the collapse and ruin of the watchdog press under Bush, "it's far from clear that the entire profession yet understands why it has lost the public's faith." The dinner, he wrote, "is a crystallization of the press's failures in the post-9/11 era."

NYTimes also pulling out of Gridiron Dinner.

From the Boston Herald:

Rich insists the dinner "illustrates how easily a propaganda-driven White House can enlist the Washington news media in its shows."

First, has there ever in the history of this nation not been a "propaganda-driven White House" -- by which we assume he means one which will use the tools at its disposal to advance its agenda? Gosh, bet Bill Clinton never thought of that!

Which, of course, raises the issue of whether Rich will look down his nose at the event should the next president be a Democrat -- and whether the Times will continue its "boycott" then.

More reaction in CJR, Politico, Post.

In today's column, Frank Rich drops this subtle line...

After last weekend's correspondents' dinner, The Times decided to end its participation in such events. But even were the dinner to vanish altogether, it remains but a yearly televised snapshot of the overall syndrome. The current White House, weakened as it is, can still establish story lines as fake as "Mission Accomplished" and get a free pass.

Will anyone else do the same? Or is just the Times being, well, the Times?

(Photo Credit)

Yeah, that's right: We're not done posting party pics, which means that anyone working near this tipster...

OK one more post saying something about "prom" and Im going to throw up. Im serious. It's old, it's over and it's so ... last weekend.

...may want to stay far, far away, because puking is so ... high school.

From People magazine's Friday party at IndeBleu:

And Saturday Night:

From White House Briefing:

The night's biggest prize for defensiveness, however, went to the White House Correspondents Association's president, Steve Scully of C-Span. "I'd like for just a moment to talk . . . about this dinner, because it has received its fair share of criticism [from] those who question whether reporters and their sources should dine together at a night like this," Scully said. "Now our job is to question policies and look at events with a skeptical eye. And I have to tell you that one dinner will not change that. . . .

"So let today be an example of what is good about our democracy and our First Amendment. Let us be reminded that an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy, nor does an evening of civility mean we are selling out."

But from what I see, the critics of the dinner are not saying Washington journalists should hate their sources -- just hold their sources accountable. I'm quite sure the dinner would be forgiven if the media was seen to be doing its job the rest of the time.

A leading concern appears to be that in the Bush era, where spin and message control and confabulation have been taken to unprecedented new heights, the old rules aren't serving journalism or the public as well as they once did. Where once a general coziness with sources gained journalists valuable information they could impart to the public, now it is more likely to win them little more than a returned phone call full of obfuscation.

That's why the dinner rubs so many people the wrong way. It is increasingly widely seen as the celebration of a con -- by the conned.

For his part, Steve Scully says:

"If people want to criticize the dinner, then don't come," he added. "But for those people who come, they have a good time." He said the expanding blogosphere likely had something to do with the increased scrutiny. "I think the blogs are driving it," he said. "That is good, they have a point of view and it is probably better to have people look at this with a critical eye. As long as everybody knows what it is about, it is an enjoyable night."

Click here to see great pictures of the Bloomberg Party before all you crazy kids showed up and dirtied it up.

All photos by Ivan Villegas and taken at the Four Seasons.