If any of them were to fire back at Trump and defend themselves against his insults they would be defending their profession and their function as defenders of free speech, not themselves personally. So please do make it about "yourself," Caitlin, because that's not what you'd be doing anyhow. I'd love to see someone, especially one of the women he so especially delights in tormenting, get right back in his face. So what if he retaliates by banning them from press conferences or AF1? We've already seen that when people fight back they win, either directly or indirectly (Kimmel, Colbert, etc.).

fer chrissakes.

A reporter delving into how they personally felt and the damage to their career and reputation and so on would be making it about themselves I suppose.

But just questioning the appropriateness of a president hurling insults, pretty much always with some sexist/bigoted angle to boot, is called doing your job, covering what the president does.

Really, it's utterly pathetic that the media didn't bury him the minute he trotted out the whole "fake news" nonsense. Shows how completely beholden they are to him.

That'll show him! Why don't you whisper "I'm sorry I made you upset Sir.".

I guess. And the other reporters are too, so that's why they don't defend each other. Their million-dollar jobs depend on being there. This name calling is far from new, and if any of them were going to stand up they would have by now.

Like they did with Clinton, Obama and Biden.

They'd get replaced immediately by someone even more supine if possible. Problem is, media access should not be controlled by the White House. WHPC should be by lottery and rotating. Questions should be submitted by an impartial non White House staff participant. This controlling of the narrative does nothing for the people.