There are a whole host of rationale’s one can form as to why the WHCA decided to trade truth-telling for obeisance, and they are likely all partially to blame, though the most logical one rests on the incentive structure between the press and the presidency.

Come now. Let’s not be deliberately oblique.

The purpose of the event was always to provide a light hearted evening where the three opposing “sides” (left, right, and media) could, with drinks and clever banter, put their weapons aside for at least one evening and be glad, trite as it may sound, that we were all Americans who wanted to do right by our country, albeit on disagreeing how that was to be done; and the freedom of information that allowed voters to make educated choices on which they preferred.

However, in the current version, two of the sides have aligned themselves to administer a public flogging to the third whilst the third is prevented from responding by decorum. Not satisfied with this violation of tradition and good taste, apologists like you are shocked — SHOCKED, I TELL YOU (in the Casablanca sense) that the “side” to which the flogging was administered now has the audacity to object to it all.

I applaud the WHCA for responding as they did, because they see the writing on the wall: next time, those slated for their public flogging will simply not show up, as their President already has the good sense to do. Limbaugh, Hannity, and the rest of the right-wing talkers will re-label the WHCD as the “Leftist Correspondence Dinner” if they’re lucky; more likely will be something that references Goebbels.

And from there, the media becomes a laughingstock to half of America; and they will have only themselves to blame.

Yes, what flows out of Trump’s mouth is problematic from a truth standpoint; and it is unfortunately Ms. Sanders job, like all press secretaries, to wrap that spin up into an edible package. Not an easy job for any secretary, because as you (selectively) allude to, no president speaketh truth all the time. A simple Google shows you that.

former President George W. Bush searches on stage for WMDs, (a very funny joke about the administration lying to the press to manufacture justification for the Iraq War),

It;s telling that you use this as your example. Mr. Bush, btw, never uttered a statement regarding WMD’s that at least ONE US intel source did not agree with at the time it was said. Now, did Mr. Bush (and the rest of the noxious neocons) SPIN the facts like crazy to get us to Iraq? Yes, true.

But more to the point, it always seemed to slip the emcee’s notice that Mr. Obama had a consequential whopper of his own; the one that the WaPo awarded four Pinocchios to, that he used to get a skeptical public to sign on to the ACA using; the “If you like your plan, you can keep it” whopper.

Never was that one discovered, it seems, by the WHCD’s emcee, or by much of the press, despite the fact that it was a blatant lie said to get a huge policy proposal passed.

Which makes all the protestations about Ms. Sanders sound a bit……hollow. Apparently you can lie if the press likes you, or if it’s an end to an approved means, no matter how significant the lie is.

But if the press doesn’t like you, the knives are out.

Free markets, free minds. Question all narratives. If you think one political party is right and the other party is evil, the problem with our politics is you.