WRAL.com56%

White House correspondents' dinner, redux: New venue, fewer guests, and a presidential speech 19%

By JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer29%

7/24/2026, 8:28:11 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Availability Heuristic, and Pessimism Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 16.7% saturation with 155 hits. Analysis detected 757 faulty-reasoning hits from 926 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33.7% and a BS Rank of 19% (17,874 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 81.70% of the article peer group.

Three months after a gunman upended the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, guests at the rescheduled event arrived Friday to markedly tighter security, a much smaller guest list, a more relaxed dress code  and expectations of a confrontational presidential speech teased by his press secretary as “unifying yet vicious.” 
The rescheduled dinner was taking place in the ballroom of the Waldorf Astoria hotel, a smaller venue that held only about 700 people. 
Guests entered via a single entrance, through two ID checks and past a detection dog, armed officers and security guards. 
There was no red carpet and no separate cocktail receptions preceding the dinner. 
President Donald Trump entered the ballroom to polite applause, and was thanked for his support by WHCA president Weijia Jiang of CBS News. 
“Let’s try this again,” Jiang quipped, welcoming the crowd. 
The White House press corps, she noted, “always has a follow-up.” 
Turning serious, she referred back to the trauma and confusion of the original dinner in April. 
“Tonight our message is this: We are back," she said. 
"We will not be intimidated. 
We refuse to let an act of violence have the final word.” 
As guests settled in for dinner, the biggest question remained what the event's most prominent guest would bring to the table. 
Would he, in the words of his press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, be somehow both unifying and vicious? 
He was widely expected to bring the fighting words (“rather nasty,” he said) against the press that he’d planned to deliver in April  before the event descended into chaos when a gunman stormed a security checkpoint, forcing an evacuation of the room. 
“The president looks forward to finishing what he started,” Leavitt said on Thursday. 
Trump has been coy about what he might say 
As for Trump himself, he indicated last month he wasn’t sure. 
“I don’t know whether or not I will give the same rather nasty statements, at least as it concerns certain people, but we will soon find out," the Republican president wrote on his Truth Social platform. 
“In any event, it will be a ‘HOT’ ticket!” 
Besides the pared-down approach, there was another change at Friday’s dinner: two additional awards. 
One will be presented to Victor Gonzales, the Secret Service agent who was staffing a security checkpoint in April and was struck in his protective vest. 
“Officer Gonzales  ran toward danger so that thousands of others could make it home safely," Weijia Jiang, WHCA president, said in a statement. 
“His courage stemmed from a dedication to service, which we are looking forward to honoring this week.” 
A second award was to be presented to the staff of the Washington Hilton hotel, site of the first dinner. 
The dress code this time is a looser “black tie optional," and dinner includes grilled peach and burrata salad, lobster, and beef Wellington. 
The evening, as at the last dinner, has entertainment by mentalist Oz Pearlman, along with the awards presentations and Trump's remarks. 
Jiang and her fellow board members worked hard to bring about this WHCA dinner 2.0, not wanting to let a violent act  or the image of colleagues hiding under tables  remain the final thought. 
Announcing the rescheduling, she emphasized the dinner’s stated purpose: “a celebration of a free press and the vital role of journalism in our democracy for over a century.” 
“We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word, especially during a year when we are reflecting on the 250th anniversary of America and everything we stand for,” Jiang said. 
There's still lots of criticism of the event 
But it’s also clear that some people felt the dinner should not be rescheduled at all. 
Many never thought it was much of a good look in the first place, with the sight of journalists in formal wear cozying up to their sources, or the objects of their reporting. 
“It undermines the public faith in how the press does its work, and it makes it look like we are pals with the people we cover,” Kelly McBride, an ethics expert at the Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank, said when the deliberations were taking place. 
The new dinner comes during a time of fast-increasing tension between the media and a president who, in his second term, has tried to exert pressure on media outlets he is unhappy with in a variety of ways. 
That pressure has ranged from sanctions against members of the White House press corps to regulatory actions through the Federal Communications Commission to outright lawsuits. 
Those tensions have only escalated since April, with the latest example reaching a New York courtroom on Thursday. 
There, criticized by a federal judge for sloppy legal work, the government withdrew subpoenas that would have compelled three New York Times reporters to testify about their sources for articles about Trump’s Qatari-gifted Air Force One jet. 
That escalation was the impetus behind a letter from a coalition of press freedom groups and hundreds of former journalists, urging the WHCA to stand up to Trump forcefully at the dinner. 
“We believe it is hypocritical to celebrate the First Amendment in front of the man who relentlessly attacks it,” the letter says. 
“We urge the WHCA to condemn the administration’s actions from the podium and pledge to fight all attempts by his administration to undermine this core pillar of a functioning democracy.” 
___ 
Jocelyn Noveck covers the intersection of media and entertainment for The Associated Press. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 3.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.8%WRAL: 0.9%Anchoring Bias2.3%This article: 6.2%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 2.1%WRAL: 3.0%Availability Heuristic6.2%This article: 3.6%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 1.2%WRAL: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic3.6%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 4.0%WRAL: 7.5%Framing Effect2.4%This article: 4.2%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 1.4%WRAL: 0.2%Loss Aversion4.2%This article: 3.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 1.0%WRAL: 0.4%Status Quo Bias3.0%This article: 3.9%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 1.3%WRAL: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect3.9%This article: 1.1%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.4%WRAL: 1.6%Optimism Bias1.1%This article: 5.4%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 1.8%WRAL: 2.0%Pessimism Bias5.4%This article: 16.7%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 9.2%WRAL: 7.7%Negativity Bias16.7%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 2.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 1.5%WRAL: 1.1%Halo Effect4.4%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.5%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 2.9%WRAL: 1.4%Recency Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 2.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.6%WRAL: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.2%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 4.7%WRAL: 3.1%Hasty Generalization8.2%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 1.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 2.2%WRAL: 6.8%Appeal to Emotion1.0%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 3.5%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 1.2%WRAL: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.5%This article: 2.4%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.8%WRAL: 0.1%Tu Quoque2.4%This article: 3.2%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 1.1%WRAL: 0.5%Burden of Proof3.2%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 1.7%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 1.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 2.6%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 1.2%WRAL: 3.4%Biased Writer Voice2.6%This article: 3.2%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 1.1%WRAL: 1.2%Indoctrination3.2%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 1.9%WRAL: 1.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 0.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%JOCELYN NOVECK — AP National Writer: 0.0%WRAL: 0.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

926 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers29%attributed speech656writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWeijia Jiang • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWeijia Jiang • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWeijia Jiang • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWeijia Jiang • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWeijia Jiang • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWeijia Jiang • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageKaroline Leavitt • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 36 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWeijia Jiang • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWeijia Jiang • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWeijia Jiang • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWeijia Jiang • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageKelly McBride • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Weijia Jiang

88%flagged-word coverage
166 attributed words61% of attributed speech65% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice+14.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Weijia Jiang: 14.5%14.5%Indoctrination-4.6 ptsWriter: 4.6%Weijia Jiang: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.