B1 · Intermediate
13 min
press freedomamerican political culturejournalismmedia institutions
The Dinner and the Bullet: Press, Power, and an American Night
La Cena y la Bala: Prensa, Poder y una Noche Americana
This week, gunshots interrupted the White House Correspondents' Dinner in Washington, and President Trump was evacuated unharmed. Fletcher and Octavio dig into what this event is, why it matters, and what it reveals about the relationship between the press and power in America.
Esta semana, disparos interrumpieron la Cena de Corresponsales de la Casa Blanca en Washington, y el presidente Trump fue evacuado sin heridas. Hablamos de qué es esta cena, por qué importa, y qué dice sobre la relación entre la prensa y el poder en Estados Unidos.
7 essential B1-level terms from this episode, with translations and example sentences in Spanish.
| Spanish | English | Example |
|---|---|---|
| corresponsal | correspondent | El corresponsal trabajó muchos años en el extranjero. |
| libertad de prensa | press freedom | La libertad de prensa es muy importante en una democracia. |
| espectáculo | spectacle / show | La ceremonia fue un gran espectáculo para todos los espectadores. |
| símbolo | symbol | La bandera es un símbolo importante para el país. |
| llevar + gerundio | to have been doing something (for a period of time) | Llevo dos años aprendiendo español con mucho interés. |
| precario | precarious / unstable | Muchos periodistas jóvenes tienen contratos muy precarios. |
| coexistir | to coexist | En una democracia, el gobierno y la prensa deben coexistir. |
Picture the scene: the president of the United States, the most powerful person on earth, sitting at a banquet table surrounded by the journalists whose job it is to hold him accountable.
That's the White House Correspondents' Dinner.
And this year, someone fired a gun.
Sí, Fletcher.
Yes, Fletcher.
Escuché la noticia y pensé: esto es muy simbólico.
I heard the news and thought: this is very symbolic.
No sé si el símbolo es bueno o malo, pero es muy grande.
I don't know if the symbol is good or bad, but it's a very big one.
Well, let's lay out what actually happened before we get into what it means.
Gunshots were heard at the Washington Hilton hotel on Saturday night, during the dinner.
Trump and Melania were rushed out by the Secret Service, both unharmed.
A 31-year-old from California was taken into custody.
La pregunta más importante no es quién disparó.
The most important question isn't who fired the gun.
La pregunta más importante es: ¿qué es esta cena?
The most important question is: what is this dinner?
Porque mucha gente fuera de Estados Unidos no sabe nada de esto.
Because many people outside the United States know nothing about it.
Fair point.
The White House Correspondents' Dinner is, on paper, a fairly simple concept.
It's an annual fundraising gala put on by the association of journalists who cover the White House.
The president attends.
Celebrities attend.
There's a roast-style comedy set.
It's been happening since 1921.
Desde 1921.
Since 1921.
Eso es mucho tiempo.
That's a long time.
Significa que esta cena existía cuando Mussolini llegó al poder en Italia, cuando Hitler llegó al poder en Alemania.
It means this dinner existed when Mussolini came to power in Italy, when Hitler came to power in Germany.
La prensa americana y el presidente americano continuaron con su tradición.
The American press and the American president continued their tradition.
That longevity is actually part of what makes it interesting.
It survived two world wars, Watergate, Vietnam, 9/11.
And it's always been this slightly uncomfortable ritual where the people who wield power and the people who scrutinize that power break bread together and make jokes about each other.
En España no tenemos algo así.
In Spain we don't have anything like that.
La idea de que el presidente cena con los periodistas y hace chistes sobre sí mismo...
The idea that the president dines with journalists and makes jokes about himself...
no existe.
it doesn't exist.
En España, la relación entre el gobierno y la prensa es más formal, más seria, más distante.
In Spain, the relationship between the government and the press is more formal, more serious, more distant.
I spent years covering governments in a lot of countries, and that American ritual is genuinely unusual.
There's this theory behind it, this idea that democracy is healthy when the powerful can laugh at themselves publicly.
The dinner is supposed to perform that health.
Pero también hay una crítica.
But there's also a criticism.
Algunos periodistas dicen que la cena es un problema porque los periodistas y los políticos se hacen amigos.
Some journalists say the dinner is a problem because journalists and politicians become friends.
Y cuando eres amigo de alguien, es más difícil criticarlo.
And when you're friends with someone, it's harder to criticize them.
That critique has real teeth.
There's a term for it in journalism: access journalism.
The idea that if you get too cozy with your sources, you start protecting them because you can't afford to lose them.
And that dinner, with its black ties and celebrity selfies, has always been exhibit A for critics who say Washington journalism is too comfortable.
Exacto.
Exactly.
Yo trabajé muchos años en El País.
I worked many years at El País.
Y siempre había una tensión: ¿cuánto tiempo puedes hablar con un político sin perder tu independencia?
And there was always a tension: how long can you speak with a politician without losing your independence?
No es fácil.
It's not easy.
Es una pregunta muy seria.
It's a very serious question.
And it gets more complicated with Trump specifically, because he has a complicated relationship with the dinner.
He skipped it entirely during his first term, every single year.
This time he showed up, which was itself a statement.
¿Por qué fue?
Why did he go?
Esa es la pregunta.
That's the question.
Trump llama a los periodistas «el enemigo del pueblo».
Trump calls journalists 'the enemy of the people.' But he went to have dinner with them.
Pero fue a cenar con ellos.
That's interesting.
Eso es interesante.
There's something political in that decision.
Hay algo político en esa decisión.
My read on it: you attend when you think you can dominate the room.
His first term, he didn't trust the dynamic.
This time he walked in as a man who'd beaten every prediction, every prosecution, everything thrown at him.
He probably felt untouchable.
And then someone fired a gun.
Y aquí está la ironía.
And here is the irony.
La cena existe para celebrar la libertad de prensa, para mostrar que en Estados Unidos la prensa y el gobierno pueden coexistir, incluso pueden reírse juntos.
The dinner exists to celebrate press freedom, to show that in the United States the press and the government can coexist, can even laugh together.
Y este año hubo violencia.
And this year there was violence.
I want to sit with that for a second, because press freedom is something I take personally.
I've known journalists who were killed.
I've been in situations, not many, where I understood the risk in a very concrete way.
And the Correspondents' Dinner always felt like this insulated, protected bubble, almost innocent.
That's not entirely comfortable to say out loud.
Entiendo lo que dices.
I understand what you're saying.
Y es importante.
And it's important.
En muchos países, los periodistas trabajan con miedo todos los días.
In many countries, journalists work in fear every day.
En México, en Rusia, en Filipinas.
In Mexico, in Russia, in the Philippines.
La cena de Washington es un lujo.
The Washington dinner is a luxury.
Un lujo importante, pero un lujo.
An important luxury, but a luxury.
That's exactly the tension, isn't it.
The dinner is a luxury of a country that has, for most of its history, maintained a functioning free press.
But functioning doesn't mean safe, and safe doesn't mean free.
Those are three different things.
Y en la historia de la cena, hubo momentos muy importantes.
And in the history of the dinner, there were very important moments.
Por ejemplo, en 2011, Obama habló en la cena con mucho humor sobre Donald Trump.
For example, in 2011, Obama spoke at the dinner with a lot of humor about Donald Trump.
Trump estaba en la sala.
Trump was in the room.
Muchas personas dicen que esa noche fue la razón por la que Trump decidió presentarse a las elecciones.
Many people say that night was the reason Trump decided to run for president.
That story gets told a lot, and there's probably something to it, though I'd caution against making any single dinner the origin story of a presidency.
But what it does show is that these rituals have real consequences.
The culture around power is never just decoration.
Exactamente.
Exactly.
Mira, los rituales son importantes en todas las culturas.
Look, rituals are important in all cultures.
En España, tenemos rituales políticos también.
In Spain, we also have political rituals.
La investidura, por ejemplo.
The investiture, for example.
O las fiestas nacionales.
Or national holidays.
Los rituales dicen algo sobre los valores de un país.
Rituals say something about a country's values.
And what does the Correspondents' Dinner say about American values, in your view?
You've spent enough time here to have a perspective that isn't mine.
Bueno, dice que los americanos creen en el espectáculo.
Well, it says that Americans believe in spectacle.
Todo en Estados Unidos es un poco espectáculo.
Everything in the United States is a bit of a spectacle.
La política, el deporte, los premios.
Politics, sport, awards ceremonies.
La cena de corresponsales es política y espectáculo al mismo tiempo.
The correspondents' dinner is politics and spectacle at the same time.
Para los americanos, eso es normal.
For Americans, that's normal.
Para mí, es fascinante y un poco extraño.
For me, it's fascinating and a little strange.
I'll grant you that.
There's a reason the dinner started attracting Hollywood in the nineties.
It became part of the same entertainment complex.
Anna Wintour attends.
Netflix attends.
At some point the journalists are the least famous people in the room.
Y eso es el problema, ¿no?
And that's the problem, isn't it?
Cuando la cena era más pequeña y más seria, era más honesta.
When the dinner was smaller and more serious, it was more honest.
Cuando se hizo famosa y grande, perdió algo.
When it became famous and big, it lost something.
Es una historia muy común: cuando algo se hace popular, cambia.
It's a very common story: when something becomes popular, it changes.
The comedian Michelle Wolf gave a set at the 2018 dinner that was genuinely savage about the Trump administration, and the backlash was enormous.
Not just from the right.
A lot of establishment journalists were uncomfortable.
And that discomfort told you something: the dinner had decided it preferred to be a celebration rather than a critique.
Eso me parece un momento muy importante.
That seems like a very important moment to me.
Porque la pregunta es: ¿la prensa está ahí para hacer cómoda la vida de los políticos o para hacerla difícil?
Because the question is: is the press there to make politicians' lives comfortable or to make them difficult?
Cuando la prensa hace chistes suaves y bonitos, no es prensa.
When the press makes soft, pretty jokes, it's not the press.
Es relaciones públicas.
It's public relations.
That's a hard line and I think you're largely right.
Though I'd push back slightly: the dinner has also produced real, sharp comedy about power.
Stephen Colbert in 2006 skewered Bush to his face, in the room, on live television, and Bush did not look comfortable.
That mattered.
Sí, eso es verdad.
Yes, that's true.
Y es una diferencia importante.
And it's an important difference.
Hay momentos en la historia de la cena que son valientes.
There are moments in the dinner's history that are brave.
Pero hay otros momentos que son suaves y sin valor.
But there are other moments that are soft and worthless.
Como muchas instituciones, la calidad depende de las personas que participan.
Like many institutions, the quality depends on the people who participate.
Now, back to what actually happened this week.
A shot fired at the dinner.
A 31-year-old detained.
We don't know the full motive yet.
But I want to ask you: what does it mean, symbolically, that this specific event was targeted?
Because it wasn't the Capitol.
It wasn't a campaign rally.
It was a dinner for the press.
Para mí, significa que vivimos en un momento muy peligroso para las instituciones.
For me, it means we live in a very dangerous moment for institutions.
La cena de corresponsales representa algo: la idea de que la prensa y el poder pueden existir en el mismo espacio.
The correspondents' dinner represents something: the idea that the press and power can exist in the same space.
Atacar esa cena es atacar esa idea.
To attack that dinner is to attack that idea.
And that idea is under pressure in a lot of places right now.
Not just through violence.
Through legislation, through defunding, through calling reporters enemies.
The gun is the most dramatic version of something that's happening much more quietly in a lot of democracies.
En España, la situación de la prensa no es perfecta tampoco.
In Spain, the situation of the press is not perfect either.
Hay problemas con la concentración de los medios, con la publicidad del gobierno, con los periodistas que tienen contratos precarios.
There are problems with media concentration, with government advertising, with journalists who have precarious contracts.
No es violencia, pero son problemas reales.
It's not violence, but they are real problems.
The slow erosion is actually harder to fight than the dramatic moments.
A gunshot produces outrage.
A regulation that quietly defunds public media, or an advertising boycott that starves a critical outlet, those things happen without the alarm going off.
I've watched that in a lot of countries.
Sí.
Yes.
Y volvemos a la cena.
And we come back to the dinner.
La cena de corresponsales es un símbolo, pero los símbolos importan.
The correspondents' dinner is a symbol, but symbols matter.
Cuando el símbolo está bajo ataque, es una señal.
When the symbol is under attack, it's a signal.
No sé si la gente en Estados Unidos comprende bien lo que tiene, o lo que puede perder.
I don't know if people in the United States understand well what they have, or what they could lose.
That's probably the most important thing you've said in this whole conversation.
You often don't know what an institution is worth until it's gone.
I've reported from places where the free press disappeared, and it went faster than anyone expected.
It never looks like a cliff until you're over it.
Y ahora una pregunta práctica: ¿crees que la cena va a continuar el año que viene?
And now a practical question: do you think the dinner will continue next year?
¿O este incidente va a cambiar todo?
Or will this incident change everything?
My instinct is it continues.
These things are remarkably resilient.
They'll increase security, there'll be a review, a commission, probably a statement about the importance of the free press.
And then next April, the tuxedos will come back out.
Americans are very good at ritual resilience.
Espero que tengas razón.
I hope you're right.
Pero espero también que la cena del año que viene sea más honesta que las últimas.
But I also hope that next year's dinner is more honest than the recent ones.
Menos celebrities, más periodismo.
Fewer celebrities, more journalism.
Más preguntas difíciles, menos fotografías bonitas.
More difficult questions, fewer pretty photographs.
I'll drink to that.
Though knowing how these things work, the celebrity lineup will be announced before the security review is even finished.
Anyway, before we go, you used a phrase earlier that I want to come back to.
You said something like «llevan 80 años celebrando esta cena» and I've been meaning to ask you about that construction, because it threw me the first time I heard it.
Ah, sí.
Ah, yes.
«Llevar» más el gerundio.
«Llevar» plus the gerund.
Mira, en español usamos «llevar» para decir cuánto tiempo hacemos algo.
Look, in Spanish we use «llevar» to say how long we've been doing something.
«Llevan cien años celebrando esta cena» significa «they have been holding this dinner for a hundred years».
«Llevan cien años celebrando esta cena» means «they have been holding this dinner for a hundred years».
Es una construcción muy natural en español.
It's a very natural construction in Spanish.
So it's the verb for «to carry» doing the work of «for how long.» That's a conceptual leap I did not make naturally.
I kept wanting to say «tienen» or «están» and it just came out wrong every time.
Sí, y la estructura es simple.
Yes, and the structure is simple.
«Llevar» más el tiempo más el gerundio.
«Llevar» plus the time plus the gerund.
«Llevo tres años estudiando español.» «Llevamos ocho años trabajando juntos.» Funciona con cualquier verbo.
«Llevo tres años estudiando español.» «Llevamos ocho años trabajando juntos.» It works with any verb.
Es muy útil.
It's very useful.
Eight years arguing, in our case.
«Llevamos ocho años discutiendo.» Is that right?
Perfecto.
Perfect.
[chuckle] Y también «llevamos ocho años siendo amigos».
And also «llevamos ocho años siendo amigos».
Las dos cosas son verdad.
Both things are true.