🔗 Share this article

“Things happen.” Just two words. That was enough for the US president to brush off what is probably the most infamous murder of a reporter of the past ten years – and in so doing sank to a fresh depth in his contempt for journalists, for journalism – and for the facts.

Background Details

The US president’s dismissive attitude of the killing of well-known reporter Jamal Khashoggi came during a press conference with the Saudi leader, Mohammed bin Salman – a man whom the CIA concluded in a recent assessment had orchestrated the abduction and murder of the journalist in that year. (The crown prince has denied involvement.)

The American spy agencies were not the only ones to determine the murder – which took place in the Saudi consulate in Turkey and in which the late Khashoggi was drugged and cut apart – was approved at the highest levels. An inquiry led by then UN special rapporteur, the UN investigator, reached similar conclusions.

Global Reactions

For a brief period, nations were in agreement in their condemnation of Saudi Arabia’s actions. The US imposed sanctions and visa bans in that year over the killing, although it stopped short of penalizing Prince Mohammed 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.

White House Remarks

Opponents of the government had strongly criticized the meeting. But what was on display at the White House was worse than could have been imagined. Not only did Trump fete the Saudi leader but he effectively rewrote the facts – and then blamed the victim. The crown prince, Trump claimed when asked, was unaware about the murder – in clear opposition to what his country’s own spy agencies concluded previously. Moreover, the president said: “Many individuals disliked that person that you’re talking about, whether you approve of him or didn’t like him, incidents occur.”

Pattern of Behavior

This represents a new and abject point for a leader who has made no attempt to hide of his contempt for the truth – or for the press. Trump has smeared journalists (he called a news network, whose journalist asked the inquiry about Khashoggi at the Saudi press conference “fake news”), berated them in open settings (he called one a “piggy” this week for asking about his connection with the convicted sex offender financier the convicted criminal), taken legal action against media organizations for eye-watering sums of money in frivolous cases, and called for news outlets he doesn’t like to lose their licenses.

He has pressured veteran news services out of the official briefing group for refusing to use terminology of his choosing, and he has gutted financial support for vital news services at domestically and vital independent media internationally.

Broader Implications

All of that has fostered an environment in which reporters are clearly more vulnerable in the US, but one in which their victimization – and indeed killing – becomes not just unimportant (“things happen”) but tolerated (“many individuals disliked that gentleman”).

It is no surprise that that year was the deadliest year on file for journalists in the more than 30 years the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has been tracking this information: a ongoing neglect to bring to justice those accountable for reporter murders has created a culture of impunity in which journalists’ killers are actually able to escape punishment and so continue to do so.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the Middle Eastern nation, which is responsible for the killing of more than 200 media workers in the past two years.

Societal Impact

The impact on society is deep. Attacks on journalists are attacks on the truth. They are undermining of reality. They are attacks on our rights to know and on our freedom to exist without fear and securely.

This week, CPJ gathers for its annual global journalism honors. The statement there is the identical as my one for the president: such events may occur. But it is our duty to make sure they do not.