This is The Poynter Report, your daily guide to the news about news. Subscribe to get it in your inbox every weekday.

Why?

That was the first thought that popped into my head Tuesday when the White House Correspondents’ Association announced it would reschedule its annual swanky dinner for July 24 in Washington, D.C.

When the WHCA held its dinner back in April, it was abruptly cut short when a shooter tried to enter the event and fired on a Secret Service agent, who, fortunately, suffered only minor injuries.

At the time, President Donald Trump, just an invitee and not a host, said he wanted the event rescheduled within 30 days. The WHCA also seemed eager to reschedule the event, but wisely took its time deciding the next steps.

Now, perhaps not as wisely, the WHCA says it’s time to try again.

To her credit, WHCA president Weijia Jiang of CBS News makes a strong case in her announcement, writing, “The White House Correspondents’ Dinner has served as a celebration of a free press and the vital role of journalism in our democracy for over a century. When gunfire interrupted this year’s event, it further clarified the WHCA’s mission to advocate for the freedoms that are protected in the First Amendment. 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 admitted it was not an easy decision, saying, “It was a choice that the WHCA board made after thoughtful consideration and input from our members.”

That all sounds admirable. And, we must acknowledge and appreciate that the dinner is a fundraiser for WHCA, as well as a way to celebrate the First Amendment. I also absolutely believe Jiang when she says it was not an easy decision.

Jiang wrote, “This dinner will not only be an opportunity to carry out our program. It will be a statement that violence has no place in American life and a free press will not be intimidated into silence. As you have all demonstrated, courage and community can and should rise above.”

All that sounds commendable — and I mean that sincerely.

However, even before the violence of this year’s event, the WHCA dinner has been, well, icky.

The Washington Post’s Scott Nover wrote, “The dinner, which was first held in 1921, has attracted criticism from some press advocates who lament cozy mingling between journalists and their powerful sources.”

Back in April, just before this year’s original dinner, my Poynter colleague Kelly McBride wrote, “The annual rationalizing that it’s just a show of civility to party with the people one covers doesn’t overcome the public’s skepticism about our independence. What was once (a fairly long time ago) a well-intended night of fundraising and camaraderie among professional adversaries is now simply a bad look.”

Making it even worse is Trump. After boycotting the dinner in all of his previous years as president, Trump decided to attend this year’s event and, from all accounts, planned to give a speech skewering the media. That came as no surprise.

His planned disparaging speech would have been on top of spending the past 10 years undercutting the media, mocking them, threatening them, banning them and even suing them. No president has done more to undermine and sow distrust in the media than this president.

In a Truth Social post on Tuesday, Trump said he plans to attend the dinner, calling its reschedule a “sign of Strength and Fortitude.”

OK, that sounds encouraging.

He continued, “This announcement is a very good thing in that we cannot allow Lunatics to change our way of life, or even its scheduling. I was asked to be there, and speak, by Weijia Jiang, President of The White House Correspondents’ Association, and have accepted.”

And that sounds good, too.

But then he couldn’t help himself, adding, “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. In any event, it will be a ‘HOT’ ticket!”

Even in his post, Trump can’t promise he won’t be nasty — another reason why rescheduling the dinner in its current format seems like a lousy idea.

Steven L. Herman, executive director of the University of Mississippi’s Jordan Center for Journalism Advocacy and Innovation and a former White House bureau chief for Voice of America, told the Post, “Why do I need to pay hundreds of dollars and dress up in a tuxedo to go listen to the president of the United States insult my colleagues. I think he’s made it pretty clear he is not a champion of free speech or the free press. He only likes press or speech when it reflects positively on him.”

Then, sadly, there are concerns of another violent incident.

Jiang said in her announcement, “The event will feature significantly enhanced safety measures and new access procedures.”

Again, wanting to show resiliency and not give in to intimidation or violence, as well as what’s at stake financially, are valid reasons to want to continue the tradition of the WHCA dinner.

Still, the rawness of what just happened in April and the fact that the WHCA dinner has always been somewhat problematic seem reasons enough to not rush back into another dinner so soon. This felt like the time to go back to the drawing board for the rest of the year and really reconsider what the dinner should look like.

Pelley fired from ‘60 Minutes’

As I mentioned to start today’s newsletter, Scott Pelley is out as a correspondent at “60 Minutes,” according to multiple reports.

On Monday, Pelley blasted new “60 Minutes” executive producer Nick Bilton in a staff meeting and accused CBS News editor-in-chief Bari Weiss of “murdering” the iconic news show.

The Wall Street Journal’s Isabella Simonetti reported Tuesday night that Bilton sent Pelley a note to say he was being terminated for cause.

Earlier on Tuesday, Puck’s Dylan Byers tweeted, “Scott Pelley had a meeting with CBS News leadership at 5pm ET to discuss a path forward after his protest in 60 Minutes all-hands. The two sides did not find common ground and it now seems likely he will either resign or be fired, though neither has happened yet.”

Pelley was apparently terminated not long after that meeting.

Bilton wrote to Pelley in the letter, “Your antipathy to the future of the show has come through loud and clear.” He called Pelley’s behavior at the Monday staff meeting a “performative display of hostility.” He also wrote, “You hijacked my first meeting with staff to disparage me, my qualifications, and my intentions with remarkable incivility and contempt.”

Nevertheless, Bilton wrote to Pelley, he tried to find a way forward, but told Pelley, “You made clear that you are not interested in such a path.”

In a letter to staff, Bilton wrote, “I know how much Scott meant to many of you, and I don’t say this lightly. I made repeated attempts to have direct conversations with him over the weekend, and this afternoon I tried to find common ground.”

After he was fired, Pelley told The New York Times’ Benjamin Mullin and Michael M. Grynbaum, “I have been in combat in Afghanistan. I have been in combat in Iraq. I have been in the war zone in Ukraine multiple times, risking my life and the happiness of my family because of my devotion to the broadcast.”

Later, Pelley put out a lengthy statement. He praised the show, saying “there has never been anything in America” like it.

But, he added, “Now, the new owner of our network is casting this legend aside, apparently to curry a moment of favor with the Trump administration. The waste is heartbreaking.”

He continued by levelling serious charges: “For my part, new management has instructed me to inject falsehoods and bias into a politically sensitive story. I’ve been told to include assertions that are unverified. To date, in every case, I have managed to ignore these instructions or refuse them. Recently, politicians have been invited to choose correspondents for interviews on the broadcast. Giving politicians control over 60 Minutes interviews is not how this is done. Finally, incompetence and unprofessionalism in the new management have wreaked havoc. In a case involving one of my stories, the entire program came within 19 minutes of not getting on the air at all.”

He later added, “But now the collapse of values at the top has become untenable. The leadership of 60 Minutes is no longer recognizable. The principles I hold dear are gone, and so I must leave as well. I depart after 37 years at CBS with one emotion—a heart brimming with gratitude for the men and women of CBS News who encouraged and enriched my work, very often at the risk of their own lives. I pray for a day when those people and their ideals are honored again—a day when sanity, competence, and courage return.”

Bilton, a former New York Times technology columnist and documentary filmmaker, was named executive producer of the show by Weiss despite having no real TV news experience. He replaced Tanya Simon, who was fired by Weiss after working at “60 Minutes” for nearly three decades. Weiss also fired correspondents Sharyn Alfonsi and Cecilia Vega, as well as Draggan Mihailovich, the executive editor of the program.

Those moves have not gone over well with the staff of “60 Minutes,” and those frustrations boiled over during a meeting on Monday to officially introduce Bilton. Pelley pounded away at Bilton, questioning both his qualifications and Weiss’, criticizing the firings and expressing doubts about the future of “60 Minutes.”

Given the criticism Pelley leveled during Monday’s meeting, Tuesday’s outcome is hardly surprising. But this is another serious blow to “60 Minutes,” which had already lost Anderson Cooper, who recently stepped away after nearly 20 years.

Alyssa Ray and Benjamin Lindsay wrote for TheWrap, “Pelley’s loss would be substantial, given he became the most-awarded correspondent in the show’s history. In addition to 40 Emmys, Pelley has four Alfred I. duPont-Columbia Awards, three Peabodys, multiple Murrow, Loeb, and Writers Guild honors and the Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Journalism.”

Meanwhile, the Times wrote, “The decision to fire Mr. Pelley will almost certainly spike the tensions that have coursed through CBS News for months, and within ‘60 Minutes’ in particular.”

CNN’s Brian Stelter said on air that the Pelley firing is “bound to have many ripple effects.”

With Pelley, Cooper, Vega and Alfonsi not returning next season, “60 Minutes” currently has just three official correspondents.

Status’ Oliver Darcy wrote, “Inside ‘60 Minutes’ there is widespread belief that Pelley’s departure could very well trigger a broader exodus. Several people at the program told Status they believed that Bill Whitaker could ultimately decide to leave as well in the wake of Pelley’s firing. If Whitaker also leaves, pressure would be enormous on Lesley Stahl, whose contract expired at the end of this last season. Stahl recently returned from a shoot overseas, but I was told last week that her future remains ‘up in the air.’ Would she really want to remain on the program if both Pelley and Whitaker are gone? And what about sports correspondent Jon Wertheim? Would he want to stay if most of the team is gone?”

News from Minnesota

Major news coming from one of the nation’s best newspapers.

The Minnesota Star Tribune announced Tuesday that it will slash 15% of its staff through layoffs and buyouts. In addition, it will pursue a nonprofit ownership structure.

The Star Tribune’s Christopher Vondracek reports the outlet has approximately 495 people and that cuts will be made across all departments. The newsroom is expected to go from 200 journalists to about 175.

Vondracek wrote, “The company said the only class of newsroom employees specifically protected from the cuts are reporters, photographers and videographers.”

The Star Tribune is currently fully owned by Minnesota billionaire Glen Taylor. But that could change.

Vondracek wrote, “The board of directors and Taylor aim to place the Minnesota Star Tribune under foundation ownership. There are several new models emerging, like the Philadelphia Inquirer – now a for-profit media company owned by a not-for-profit foundation.”

Check out Vondracek’s story for more details.

Scary reporting of the day

A 10-year-old boy with a confirmed case of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of Congo. (Courtesy: CNN)

You can’t name many better reporters than CNN’s Clarissa Ward. Her latest work is incredibly important and dangerous. Ward gained access to the epicenter of the deadly Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo and reported from inside the Ebola “red zone” of Bunia General Hospital. That’s where all suspected Ebola patients are being placed.

She talked to those who contracted the virus, including a healthcare worker who says it was difficult to breathe and a 10-year-old boy who recently came out of a coma after a confirmed case of Ebola. He, too, has difficulty breathing and his mouth is covered in blisters.

Ward’s piece opens with a devastating scene of workers, wearing protective gear, disinfecting a coffin of the latest victim of Ebola while family members sob from a distance.

Ward says in the piece that they are “torn apart by grief and consumed by fear.”

It’s a difficult piece to watch, but one that needs to be seen. Ward says from outside the hospital, “As the dead are carried out, new potential cases arrive.”

While what’s in the story is what truly matters, it needs to be said that Ward and her team do extraordinary work to tell this critical story.

Also, here’s The New York Times’ Stephanie Nolen with “Only the Right Tests Can Stop This Ebola Outbreak. Congo Has Hardly Any.”

Looking down the road

The Washington Post’s Amber Phillips writes one of my favorite newsletters — “The Five-Minute Fix” — and this week, her topics have included an interesting look ahead to the 2028 presidential election.

First, here’s “Who’s leading the wide-open 2028 Democratic presidential field?”

And here’s “Ranking the 2028 Republican presidential contenders.”

Calling the shots

The NBA Finals get underway tonight with a marquee matchup, one that surely must have the NBA absolutely giddy.

The New York Knicks, one of the league’s most storied franchises from the biggest media market, will take on the San Antonio Spurs, who have Victor Wembanyama. The 22-year-old French native is officially 7-foot-4, but some believe he is actually an inch or two taller. Whatever his height, he is a freak on the court and, thanks to this finals appearance, might have established himself as the face of the NBA.

So it’s an intriguing matchup for the NBA. But it is also a critical moment for ABC/ESPN’s broadcasting team of Mike Breen, Richard Jefferson and Tim Legler.

For years, ABC/ESPN had a sensational lead announcing team of Breen on play-by-play with analysts Jeff Van Gundy and Mark Jackson. Some, like myself, considered Van Gundy to be the best NBA analyst ever. That trio called 15 NBA Finals. Breen and Van Gundy called 17.

But ESPN cut ties with Van Gundy and Jackson after the 2022-23 season. It was part of a cost-cutting round of layoffs, but it remains among the dumbest decisions ESPN has ever made. After mixing and matching crews for a couple of seasons, in part because of losing analysts who decided to go into coaching, ESPN has now settled on the crew of Breen, Jefferson and Legler, who will be calling their first NBA Finals as a team.

The Athletic’s Andrew Marchand wrote, “The New York Knicks and the San Antonio Spurs will be their first NBA Finals together, and Breen, Jefferson and Legler are very likely to return next season. However, Breen, a Hall of Famer, is never going anywhere until he wants to, while Jefferson and Legler are in a bit of a race against the clock. Can they meet the moment before ESPN executives have another move in front of them they can’t resist? These final games will give Legler and Jefferson a chance to establish themselves as a crew worthy of a long-term commitment.”

I think ESPN should’ve stuck with Doris Burke, who briefly stepped up to the top team before being demoted to ESPN’s second team. Having said that, Jefferson and Legler as analysts are fine. Not spectacular, certainly nowhere near Van Gundy and Jackson, but fine. And good enough that ESPN should keep them together for a while, if for no other reason than continuity. Then again, as Marchand notes, some current NBA superstars could become broadcasters in the near future, such as coach Steve Kerr and players such as LeBron James and Steph Curry.

So while all eyes will be on the Knicks and Spurs over the next two weeks, all ears will be on Breen, Jefferson and Legler.

Media tidbits

• Speaking of the “60 Minutes” controversy, I’m not endorsing this column by any means, but merely sharing this different take. It’s Mediaite’s Isaac Schorr with “Scott Pelley’s Embarrassing Tantrum Proves Bari Weiss’s Point.”
• The Los Angeles Times’ Meg James with “Paramount’s Delrahim slams ‘fear-mongering’ and partisan politics clouding Warner Bros. deal.”
• Awful Announcing’s Matt Yoder with a profile of one of the best sportswriters in America: “‘We do this in remembrance’: Wright Thompson’s search for home.”

Hot type

• The Los Angeles Times’ Lorraine Ali with “Springsteen, Trump and two very different music events. Guess which one artists want to play?”
• Politico’s Daniel Han with “‘I thought I had my future wife’: The Florida woman catfishing America’s political class.”

More resources for journalists

• Master trauma-informed reporting to cover mental health with accuracy, empathy and impact. Webinar: June 9 – Enroll now.
• Understand the business of journalism and make smarter decisions. Starts July 14. Enroll now.
• Learn to navigate workplace dynamics, pitch ideas confidently and level up your leadership. Online group seminar: Aug. 20-Sept. 24. Apply now.

Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at tjones@poynter.org.

The Poynter Report is your daily dive into the world of media, packed with the latest news and insights. Get it delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday by signing up here. And don’t forget to tune into our biweekly podcast for even more.