🔗 Share this article

“Things happen.” Just two words. That’s all it took for the US president to effectively dismiss what is probably the most notorious murder of a reporter of the past ten years – and in so doing sank to a fresh depth in his disregard toward journalists, for journalism – and for the facts.

Background Details

The American leader’s dismissal of the murder of well-known reporter Jamal Khashoggi came during a press conference with the Saudi crown prince, MBS – a man whom the US intelligence concluded in a recent assessment had orchestrated the kidnap and killing of the journalist in that year. (Prince Mohammed has rejected accusations.)

The American spy agencies were not the only ones to determine the murder – which occurred in the Saudi consulate in Turkey and in which the 59-year-old Khashoggi was drugged and cut apart – was signed off at the highest levels. An investigation led by former UN expert, Agnès Callamard, reached similar conclusions.

International Response

For a brief period, governments were unified in their condemnation of the kingdom’s conduct. The US enacted sanctions and visa bans in that year over the murder, although it refrained of penalizing the crown prince himself. Since then, the kingdom has been slowly rehabilitating itself – and the crown prince’s visit to the US capital seemed to be the ultimate sign of that rehabilitation.

Presidential Comments

Critics of the government had strongly criticized the meeting. But what was on display at the presidential residence was more alarming than could have been imagined. Not only did Trump honor Prince Mohammed but he seemed to alter the facts – and then pointed fingers at the victim. The crown prince, he claimed when asked, was unaware about the killing – in direct contradiction to what his country’s own spy agencies concluded previously. Moreover, Trump said: “Many individuals didn’t like that gentleman that you’re talking about, whether you approve of him or disapproved, things happen.”

Pattern of Behavior

This represents a new and abject low for a president who has made little secret of his disdain for the facts – or for the media. He has defamed journalists (he called a news network, whose journalist asked the inquiry about the journalist at the media event “fake news”), scolded them in open settings (he called one a “rude name” this week for asking about his connection with the convicted sex offender financier Jeffrey Epstein), taken legal action against media organizations for large amounts of money in vexatious law suits, and called for news outlets he doesn’t like to lose their licenses.

He has forced veteran news services out of the White House press pool for declining to use language of his choosing, and he has slashed funding for vital news services at domestically and vital independent media abroad.

Broader Implications

All of that has fostered an environment in which journalists are manifestly less safe in the United States, but one in which their victimization – and indeed killing – becomes not just unimportant (“incidents occur”) but tolerated (“a lot of people disliked that person”).

It is no surprise that that year was the deadliest year on record for journalists in the over three decades the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has been tracking this information: a ongoing neglect to bring to justice those responsible for journalist killings has established a culture of impunity in which those who murder reporters are actually able to escape punishment and so persist in these actions.

Nowhere is this more evident than in Israel, which is responsible for the deaths of over two hundred media workers in the recent period.

Societal Impact

The effect on society is profound. Targeting reporters are attacks on the truth. They are undermining of reality. They are violations of our entitlement to information and on our freedom to live freely and securely.

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