You’re probably not exactly thrilled about an annual extravaganza slated for April 29. That event is the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, a lighthearted press-politician mashup that’s on the verge of sinking under pressure from both sides. For some of us, the dinner has long been considered unavailing if not juvenile. (It is patronizingly dubbed the “nerd prom,” after all.)

As Hot Air’s Jazz Shaw argues, “[T]here are plenty of reasons not to have the event. The Fourth Estate is supposed to be policing the government, not getting drunk with it. While there may be nothing overtly in violation of journalistic policy going on, it’s always just looked bad. When the public observes the federal government and the press all getting together to laugh and laugh and laugh we have to eventually begin wondering who the joke is really on.”

But for others, like The Washington Post’s Margaret Sullivan, canceling the dinner is a form of retaliation against the Trump administration’s hold-no-prisoners approach to the media. She writes, “For journalists to make nice with an administration that has trashed and blacklisted them conjures the abused wife who sends the cops packing, puts a little extra makeup over her bruises and hopes things will get better soon.”

We can at least agree on one thing: It’s time to bid the dinner adieu. Already Vanity Fair and the New Yorker have stated they won’t be sponsoring events, and don’t be surprised if Donald Trump abandons the gala altogether (as he’s threatened). What’s the use in mingling with people who despise you at an event the American electorate already hates? As Sullivan pleads, “Cancel the dinner now.” See? Bipartisanship is possible!