Criticism of the White House press and their annual dinner has been going on for decades. The criticisms remain basically the same, even as the details change somewhat:
They are the highest paid and most celebrated journalists, even though their journalism is entirely access journalism which produces no genuine scoops. Whoever sucks up the most gets the press releases first.
They identify with the people and the institutions they cover. It is "we" not "us and them." They are on Team White House, and they rise and fall together.
They are quite defensive of the people they cover, both because of access reasons and in the same way that I can criticize Philadelphia but you had better fucking not. Their home, not yours.
They tend to be incredibly thin skinned about their own work, of course.
As journalists at the top of the food chain - salaries, status, fame - they are often quite dismissive of "lesser" journalists. You know, the ones with actual "scoops" which they are often unable to read or remember.
Access journalism includes a lot of "save it for the book" stuff. Aside from the obvious, a problem with failing to publish what you know is that you end up talking and writing around it. "Peter Hegseth says [lie which is refuted in my book out in 18 months]." It's a version of "catch and kill." Tell journalists the truth but embargo it. They have to pretend they don't know it.
They often run cover for their sources. Way too obvious case: Maggie Haberman with Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
For various reasons, these tendencies are much worse and less hidden during Republican administrations. Arguably this is mostly because Republican administrations are "better" at manipulating them, better at their care and feeding (and corrective punishments at times), and not because of ideological affinity, but that is not preferable!
