Dinner, You Got Served

(CBS/The Early Show)

There has been much debate about the dinner over the years, with many outside the media establishment citing it as evidence of a too-cozy relationship between the media and the administration.

While one can certainly make the argument that the media need a more adversarial relationship with the government, I've come to question the significance of the dinner in making that case. One night of revelry, after all, does not constitute a compromised relationship. One can certainly argue that the dinner is a symptom of larger problems. But reporters need to have a civil relationship with those they cover, and for all involved to have a night out just doesn't strike me as that big of a deal.

To be clear, I'm not a fan of the dinner – I certainly wouldn't want to have to suffer through the hobnobbing and awkward speeches that mark the event. It's just that it strikes me as far less significant in the grand scheme of things than some people seem to think.

Stephen Spruiell calls the Times' decision "a very dumb overreaction to a perceived coziness between Washington reporters and their sources." He continues:

Are NYT reporters henceforth barred from attending any party or social function at which government officials are present, for fear that liberal bloggers might accuse them of being lapdogs again? By implying that there's something improper about such hobnobbing, the Times brass is setting its D.C. reporters up for all sorts of accusations, should they, God forbid, get caught having a drink with a friend who works for the government.

This comment by Los Angeles Times D.C. Bureau Chief Doyle McManus pretty much sums it up. Events like the dinner are "largely useless and largely harmless....There is a valid concern about coziness in Washington, but the test of coziness is in the coverage," he told Editor & Publisher. "I have seen no evidence that these rather dreadful events are affecting coverage."