🔗 Share this article

“Incidents take place.” A mere phrase. That’s all it took for the US president to brush off what is arguably the most infamous journalist killing of the last decade – and in so doing sank to a fresh depth in his contempt for journalists, for the media – and for the facts.

The Context

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 abduction and murder of the journalist in that year. (Prince Mohammed has rejected accusations.)

The US intelligence services were not the only ones to determine the homicide – which occurred in the Saudi diplomatic building in Turkey and in which the late journalist was sedated and dismembered – was signed off at the top echelons. An investigation led by former UN expert, Agnès Callamard, reached comparable findings.

Global Reactions

For a brief period, nations were unified in their criticism of Saudi Arabia’s actions. The United States enacted penalties and travel restrictions in 2021 over the murder, although it refrained of sanctioning Prince Mohammed 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 redemption.

Presidential Comments

Opponents of the regime had strongly criticized the meeting. But what was on display at the White House was worse than could have been anticipated. Not only did the president fete the Saudi leader but he seemed to alter the facts – and then blamed the victim. Prince Mohammed, he claimed when asked, was unaware about the murder – in clear opposition to what his nation’s spy agencies concluded four years ago. Moreover, the president said: “Many individuals didn’t like that gentleman that you’re talking about, whether you like him or disapproved, things happen.”

Established Conduct

This represents a new and abject point for a leader who has made no attempt to hide of his disdain for the truth – or for the media. Trump has defamed journalists (he called a news network, whose reporter asked the question about the journalist at the media event “false information”), berated them in open settings (he called one a “piggy” this week for asking about his connection with the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein), sued news outlets for eye-watering sums of money in vexatious law suits, and called for media groups he disapproves of to be shut down.

He has forced established media out of the official briefing group for refusing to use language of his preference, and he has gutted funding for vital news services at domestically and crucial free press abroad.

Broader Implications

All of that has created 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 insignificant (“incidents occur”) but acceptable (“a lot of people disliked that person”).

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 persistent failure to hold those responsible for journalist killings has created a environment without consequences in which those who murder reporters are literally able to get away with murder and so persist in these actions.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the Middle Eastern nation, which is accountable for the deaths of over two hundred media workers in the past two years.

Effect on Society

The impact on the public is profound. Targeting reporters are assaults on facts. They are attacks on facts. They are violations of our entitlement to information and on our liberty to live freely and safely.

This week, the Committee to Protect Journalists meets for its annual International Press Freedom awards. My message there is the same as my one for Trump: these things may occur. But it is our responsibility to make sure they do not.