🔗 Share this article

“Things happen.” Just two words. That’s all it took for Donald Trump to effectively dismiss what is probably the most infamous journalist killing of the last decade – and in so doing plumbed a new low in his contempt for the press, for the media – and for the truth.

The Context

The American leader’s dismissive attitude of the killing of prominent journalist Jamal Khashoggi came during a media briefing with the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman – a man whom the US intelligence found in a recent assessment had ordered the kidnap and killing of the Washington Post columnist in that year. (Prince Mohammed has denied involvement.)

The American spy agencies were not the only ones to conclude the murder – which occurred in the Saudi consulate in Turkey and in which the 59-year-old Khashoggi was drugged and cut apart – was approved at the highest levels. An inquiry led by then UN special rapporteur, Agnès Callamard, reached similar conclusions.

Global Reactions

For a brief period, nations were unified in their condemnation of the kingdom’s conduct. The US imposed sanctions and travel restrictions in that year over the murder, although it refrained of penalizing 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 rehabilitation.

White House Remarks

Critics of the regime had roundly condemned the visit. But what was evident at the presidential residence was worse than could have been imagined. Not only did the president fete Prince Mohammed but he seemed to alter the facts – and then pointed fingers at the victim. Prince Mohammed, Trump claimed when asked, knew nothing about the killing – in direct contradiction to what his country’s own intelligence services determined previously. Moreover, the president said: “Many individuals disliked that gentleman that you’re talking about, whether you approve of him or didn’t like him, incidents occur.”

Pattern of Behavior

This represents a fresh and shameful point for a president who has made no attempt to hide of his contempt for the truth – or for the press. Trump has smeared journalists (he called ABC news, whose journalist asked the question about the journalist at the media event “false information”), scolded them in public (he called one a “piggy” this week for asking about his relationship with the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein), taken legal action against media organizations for eye-watering sums of money in frivolous cases, and called for media groups he disapproves of to be shut down.

He has forced established media out of the White House press pool for declining to use language of his choosing, and he has gutted funding for essential public media at home and vital independent media abroad.

Wider Consequences

All of that has fostered an environment in which journalists are clearly more vulnerable in the US, but one in which their victimization – and indeed killing – becomes not just unimportant (“incidents occur”) but acceptable (“many individuals disliked that person”).

It is no surprise that that year was the deadliest year on record for the press in the over three decades the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has been tracking this information: a ongoing neglect to bring to justice those responsible for reporter murders has created 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 accountable for the killing of more than 200 media workers in the past two years.

Effect on Society

The effect on the public is profound. Attacks on journalists are assaults on facts. They are undermining of reality. They are attacks on our rights to know and on our liberty to exist without fear and securely.

On Thursday, the Committee to Protect Journalists gathers for its annual International Press Freedom awards. 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 cease.