No. of Recommendations: 4
"I was in the room" is the problem
PLUS: Join Dean Blundell and me for "Dead Air" at 12 pm ET today
STEVE SCHMIDT
APR 27
READ IN APP
Yuri Gripas/Abaca/Bloomberg via Getty Images
There’s a certain kind of sentence that gets whispered in Washington like a password to a private club: “I was in the room.”
It’s meant to confer status. Importance. Relevance. Power by proximity.
On Saturday night at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, it was also a confession.
Because the truth is simple, unavoidable, and damning: no serious journalist should have been in that room at all.
Not when the guest of honor is Donald Trump, a man who has spent a decade waging an unrelenting assault on the First Amendment.
Washington runs on access the way a casino runs on oxygen. It’s the currency of the realm: invitations, proximity, whispers in hallways, nods across tables.
To be “in the room” is to signal that you matter — that you are not outside, not irrelevant, not one of the many shouting into the void.
But here’s the problem: access isn’t journalism.
Access isn’t courage.
Access isn’t truth.
And when access becomes the goal, journalism becomes something else entirely. It becomes a performance designed to maintain invitations rather than challenge power.
That’s what Saturday night was. It was a performance.
There’s something grotesque about raising a glass, trading jokes, and congratulating one another on the importance of a free press, while orbiting a political movement that has spent years calling journalists “enemies of the people.”
Let’s be clear about what that phrase means. It isn’t rhetorical flourish. It isn’t hyperbole. It’s the language of authoritarian regimes. It’s the prelude to repression.
And it’s been used, repeatedly, deliberately, and strategically by Donald Trump.
So what exactly was being celebrated in that room?
Courage? There was none.
Independence? It was compromised the moment the invitations were accepted.
Tradition? Traditions aren’t sacred when they’re emptied of meaning.
No members of a free press should ever salute a tyrant. Not with applause. Not with laughter. Not with their presence.
And yes, the word tyrant is appropriate here. As you know, I always choose my words carefully. This isn’t as exaggeration, but as a description of conduct.
A tyrant isn’t defined solely by the power he holds, but by the contempt he shows for the institutions that limit him.
A tyrant is revealed in his attacks on judges, on elections, on dissent — and most especially, on a free press.
What do you call a leader who:
Seeks to delegitimize every critical story as “fake?”
Singles out reporters for ridicule and intimidation?
Encourages hostility toward journalists at rallies?
Treats truth itself as an enemy to be conquered?
You call that a threat to liberty.
You call that a danger to the republic.
You don’t toast it over dinner.
There’s a comforting lie embedded in nights like this. It goes something like this:
“We can attend. We can laugh. We can play along, and we can still hold power accountable tomorrow.”
But that isn’t how it works.
Power isn’t neutral. It shapes behavior. It rewards compliance and punishes defiance.
Every time a journalist chooses proximity over principle, the line moves, until one day, the unthinkable becomes routine.
The cost isn’t measured in headlines or ratings. It’s measured in credibility.
When the public sees journalists mingling comfortably with those who attack them, something fundamental breaks.
Trust erodes. Cynicism deepens.
The press begins to look less like a watchdog, and more like a participant in the spectacle.
That’s the real tragedy of Saturday night.
It wasn’t just that journalists attended. It’s that their presence validated the very forces that seek to undermine them.
An empty room would have said more than a thousand speeches.
An empty room would have been a statement. It would have been a refusal to normalize the degradation of democratic norms.
An empty room would have drawn a line and said: Not this. Not now. Not ever.
There are moments in history when neutrality is complicity, and presence is endorsement. This was one of those moments.
“I was in the room” is supposed to signal importance.
But after Saturday night, it should be understood for what it is: a quiet admission of failure.
The most important journalists in that moment weren’t the ones inside the ballroom.
They were the ones who understood that sometimes the most powerful thing you can do in Washington is to refuse the invitation.
Stephen Schmidt
No. of Recommendations: 6
I think this bears repeating:
access isn’t journalism.
Access isn’t courage.
Access isn’t truth.
And when access becomes the goal, journalism becomes something else entirely. It becomes a performance designed to maintain invitations rather than challenge power.
