🔗 Share this article

“Things happen.” Just two words. That was enough for the US president to brush off what is arguably the most notorious murder of a reporter of the past ten years – and in so doing plumbed a new low in his contempt for journalists, for journalism – and for the facts.

Background Details

The American leader’s dismissal of the killing of prominent journalist 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 sole entities to determine the murder – which occurred in the Saudi diplomatic building in Istanbul and in which the late journalist was drugged and dismembered – was approved at the highest levels. An inquiry led by then UN special rapporteur, the UN investigator, reached comparable findings.

International Response

For a brief period, nations were in agreement in their criticism of the kingdom’s conduct. The US enacted penalties and visa bans in that year over the killing, although it stopped short of sanctioning Prince Mohammed himself. Since then, the nation has been slowly rehabilitating itself – and the leader’s trip to the US capital seemed to be the ultimate sign of that rehabilitation.

Presidential Comments

Critics of the regime had strongly criticized the visit. But what was evident at the presidential residence was worse than could have been anticipated. Not only did the president fete Prince Mohammed but he seemed to alter history – and then pointed fingers at the victim. Prince Mohammed, he asserted when asked, was unaware about the killing – in direct contradiction to what his nation’s spy agencies determined previously. Moreover, Trump said: “A lot of people disliked that person that you’re talking about, whether you like him or didn’t like him, things happen.”

Pattern of Behavior

This represents a new and abject point for a president who has made no attempt to hide of his disdain for the facts – or for the media. He has defamed reporters (he called a news network, whose journalist asked the inquiry about Khashoggi at the media event “false information”), scolded them in public (he called one a “rude name” this week for asking about his relationship with the disgraced financier the convicted criminal), taken legal action against news outlets for eye-watering sums of money in frivolous cases, and called for media groups he disapproves of to lose their licenses.

He has forced established media out of the White House press pool for declining to use language of his preference, and he has gutted funding for essential public media at home and crucial free press internationally.

Wider Consequences

All of that has fostered an atmosphere in which journalists are clearly more vulnerable in the US, but one in which their targeting – and indeed killing – becomes not just insignificant (“things happen”) but tolerated (“a lot of people disliked that gentleman”).

It is unsurprising that that year was the most lethal year on record for journalists in the more than 30 years the press freedom organization has been documenting this information: a persistent failure to hold those accountable for reporter murders has established a culture of impunity in which those who murder reporters are actually able to escape punishment and so continue to do so.

In no place is this clearer than in Israel, which is responsible for the killing of over two hundred journalists in the recent period.

Societal Impact

The impact on the public is deep. Targeting reporters are assaults on facts. They are attacks on facts. They are attacks on our entitlement to information and on our freedom to exist without fear and safely.

This week, the Committee to Protect Journalists gathers for its yearly International Press Freedom awards. My message at the event is the identical as my message for the president: such events may occur. But it is our duty to make sure they cease.