🔗 Share this article

“Things happen.” Just two words. That was enough for the US president to effectively dismiss what is arguably the most infamous journalist killing of the past ten years – and in so doing plumbed a new low in his contempt for journalists, for journalism – and for the facts.

The Context

The US president’s dismissal of the murder of prominent journalist Jamal Khashoggi came during a media briefing with the Saudi crown prince, MBS – a man whom the CIA concluded in a recent assessment had ordered the abduction and murder of the Washington Post columnist in 2018. (Prince Mohammed has rejected accusations.)

The American spy agencies were not the only ones to determine the murder – which occurred in the Saudi diplomatic building in Istanbul and in which the late journalist was sedated and dismembered – was approved at the top echelons. An investigation led by former UN expert, Agnès Callamard, reached similar conclusions.

International Response

For a short time, nations were in agreement in their condemnation of the kingdom’s conduct. The United States enacted penalties and travel restrictions in 2021 over the murder, although it refrained of penalizing Prince Mohammed himself. Since then, the kingdom has been gradually restoring itself – and the crown prince’s visit to Washington seemed to be the ultimate sign of that redemption.

White House Remarks

Opponents of the government had strongly criticized the meeting. But what was evident at the White House was more alarming than could have been anticipated. Not only did Trump honor the Saudi leader but he effectively rewrote the facts – and then blamed the deceased. Prince Mohammed, Trump claimed when asked, was unaware about the murder – in clear opposition to what his country’s own intelligence services concluded four years ago. Moreover, the president said: “Many individuals disliked that gentleman that you’re talking about, whether you like him or disapproved, incidents occur.”

Established Conduct

This represents a fresh and shameful low for a leader who has made little secret of his disdain for the facts – or for the media. Trump has smeared journalists (he called a news network, whose journalist asked the inquiry about Khashoggi 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 the convicted criminal), sued media organizations for large amounts of money in frivolous cases, and called for media groups he doesn’t like to lose their licenses.

He has forced established media out of the official briefing group for declining to use terminology of his choosing, and he has slashed financial support for essential public media at domestically and crucial free press internationally.

Broader Implications

All of that has created an environment in which reporters are manifestly less safe in the US, but one in which their victimization – and indeed killing – becomes not just unimportant (“things happen”) but acceptable (“many individuals didn’t like that person”).

It is no surprise that that year was the deadliest year on file for journalists in the more than 30 years the press freedom organization has been tracking this information: a persistent failure to hold those accountable for reporter murders has created a culture of impunity in which those who murder reporters are literally able to escape punishment and so continue to do so.

In no place is this more evident than in the Middle Eastern nation, which is responsible for the deaths of more than 200 media workers in the past two years.

Societal Impact

The effect on society is deep. Attacks on journalists are attacks on the truth. They are attacks on facts. They are violations of our entitlement to information and on our liberty to exist without fear and securely.

On Thursday, CPJ gathers for its annual global journalism honors. My message at the event is the same as my message for Trump: these things may occur. But it is our duty to make sure they do not.