🔗 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 last decade – and in so doing sank to a fresh depth in his contempt for the press, for the media – and for the facts.

The Context

The American leader’s dismissive attitude of the murder of prominent journalist Jamal Khashoggi came during a press conference with the Saudi leader, Mohammed bin Salman – a man whom the CIA found in a recent assessment had orchestrated the kidnap and killing of the Washington Post columnist in that year. (Prince Mohammed has rejected accusations.)

The American spy agencies were not the only ones to conclude the homicide – which occurred in the Saudi diplomatic building in Turkey and in which the late Khashoggi was drugged and cut apart – was approved at the top echelons. An inquiry led by then UN special rapporteur, Agnès Callamard, reached comparable findings.

Global Reactions

For a brief period, nations were in agreement in their condemnation of the kingdom’s conduct. The United States imposed sanctions and visa bans in that year over the killing, although it refrained of penalizing the crown prince himself. Since then, the kingdom has been gradually restoring itself – and the crown prince’s visit to Washington seemed to be the final confirmation of that redemption.

Presidential Comments

Opponents of the government had roundly condemned the meeting. But what was on display at the presidential residence was worse than could have been imagined. Not only did Trump fete Prince Mohammed but he effectively rewrote history – and then pointed fingers at the victim. Prince Mohammed, Trump asserted when asked, knew nothing about the killing – in direct contradiction to what his nation’s intelligence services concluded previously. Moreover, Trump said: “Many individuals didn’t like that person that you’re talking about, whether you approve of him or didn’t like him, incidents occur.”

Pattern of Behavior

This marks a fresh and shameful point for a president who has made no attempt to hide 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 Khashoggi at the media event “false information”), berated them in public (he called one a “piggy” this week for asking about his connection with the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein), sued news outlets for large amounts of money in vexatious law suits, and called for media groups he doesn’t like to be shut down.

He has pressured established media out of the White House press pool for refusing to use language of his choosing, and he has slashed funding for vital news services at home and crucial free press abroad.

Wider Consequences

All of that has fostered an environment in which journalists are manifestly less safe in the US, but one in which their victimization – and indeed murder – becomes not just insignificant (“things happen”) but acceptable (“a lot of people 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 documenting this data: a persistent failure to hold those accountable for reporter murders has established a environment without consequences in which those who murder reporters are literally 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 deaths of more than 200 journalists in the recent period.

Societal Impact

The effect on the public is profound. Targeting reporters are assaults on facts. They are attacks on facts. They are attacks on our rights to know and on our freedom to live freely and securely.

This week, CPJ meets for its yearly global journalism honors. My message at the event is the same as my message for the president: such events may occur. But it is our duty to make sure they do not.