🔗 Share this article

“Things happen.” A mere phrase. That’s all it took for Donald Trump to brush off what is arguably the most notorious murder of a reporter of the last decade – and in so doing sank to a fresh depth in his contempt for the press, for journalism – and for the facts.

The Context

The American leader’s dismissal of the killing of prominent journalist the Washington Post columnist came during a media briefing with the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman – a man whom the US intelligence concluded in a recent assessment had orchestrated the abduction and murder of the Washington Post columnist in that year. (The crown prince has denied involvement.)

The US intelligence services were not the sole entities to determine the murder – which took place in the Saudi consulate in Turkey and in which the late journalist was drugged and cut apart – was approved at the highest levels. An investigation led by former UN expert, the UN investigator, reached similar conclusions.

Global Reactions

For a short time, nations were unified in their condemnation of Saudi Arabia’s actions. The US enacted sanctions and visa bans in that year over the killing, although it refrained of penalizing the crown prince himself. Since then, the nation has been gradually restoring itself – and the crown prince’s visit to Washington seemed to be the final confirmation of that rehabilitation.

Presidential Comments

Critics of the government had strongly criticized the visit. But what was on display at the White House was worse than could have been imagined. Not only did the president fete Prince Mohammed but he effectively rewrote history – and then blamed the deceased. Prince Mohammed, he claimed when asked, was unaware about the killing – in clear opposition to what his nation’s intelligence services determined four years ago. Moreover, the president said: “A lot of people didn’t like that person that you’re talking about, whether you approve of him or disapproved, incidents occur.”

Established Conduct

This marks a fresh and shameful point for a president who has made no attempt to hide of his disdain for the truth – or for the media. He has smeared journalists (he called ABC news, whose journalist asked the question about Khashoggi at the Saudi press conference “false information”), scolded them in public (he called one a “piggy” this week for asking about his relationship with the convicted sex offender financier Jeffrey Epstein), taken legal action against media organizations for eye-watering sums of money in vexatious law suits, and called for media groups he doesn’t like to lose their licenses.

He has pressured veteran news services out of the official briefing group for refusing to use language of his choosing, and he has gutted funding for essential public media at home and crucial free press abroad.

Broader Implications

All of that has fostered an environment in which reporters are clearly more vulnerable in the United States, but one in which their victimization – and indeed murder – becomes not just insignificant (“incidents occur”) but tolerated (“a lot of people didn’t like that gentleman”).

It is no surprise that that year was the most lethal year on file for the press in the more than 30 years the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has been tracking this data: a ongoing neglect to bring to justice those responsible for journalist killings has established a environment without consequences in which those who murder reporters are literally able to get away with murder and so continue to do so.

Nowhere is this clearer than in Israel, which is responsible for the killing of over two hundred journalists in the recent period.

Effect on Society

The effect on society is deep. Attacks on journalists are assaults on facts. They are attacks on facts. They are attacks on our rights to know and on our liberty to exist without fear and safely.

This week, CPJ gathers for its yearly International Press Freedom awards. The statement there is the same as my one for the president: such events may occur. But it is our responsibility to make sure they cease.