🔗 Share this article

“Incidents take place.” Just two words. That was enough for the US president to effectively dismiss what is probably the most notorious murder of a reporter of the past ten years – and in so doing sank to a fresh depth in his disregard toward journalists, for journalism – and for the truth.

The Context

The American leader’s dismissive attitude of the killing of prominent journalist Jamal Khashoggi came during a press conference with the Saudi leader, MBS – a man whom the CIA concluded in a recent assessment had ordered the abduction and murder of the journalist in that year. (Prince Mohammed has rejected accusations.)

The US intelligence services were not the sole entities to determine the murder – which occurred in the Saudi diplomatic building in Istanbul and in which the 59-year-old journalist was sedated and dismembered – was approved at the top echelons. An investigation led by then UN special rapporteur, Agnès Callamard, reached similar conclusions.

International Response

For a short time, governments were in agreement in their criticism of Saudi Arabia’s actions. The US enacted sanctions and visa bans in 2021 over the killing, although it stopped short of penalizing the crown prince himself. Since then, the kingdom has been slowly rehabilitating itself – and the leader’s trip to Washington seemed to be the final confirmation of that redemption.

White House Remarks

Critics of the regime had roundly condemned the meeting. But what was on display at the White House was more alarming 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 deceased. Prince Mohammed, Trump claimed when asked, knew nothing about the killing – in clear opposition to what his nation’s intelligence services concluded previously. Moreover, Trump said: “A lot of people didn’t like that gentleman that you’re talking about, whether you approve of him or didn’t like him, incidents occur.”

Pattern of Behavior

This marks a new and abject point for a leader who has made little secret of his disdain for the facts – 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 “false information”), scolded them in open settings (he called one a “rude name” 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 news outlets he disapproves of to lose their licenses.

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

Wider Consequences

All of that has created 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 (“things happen”) but acceptable (“a lot of people disliked that person”).

It is unsurprising that that year was the most lethal year on file for the press 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 journalist killings has established a culture of impunity in which those who murder reporters are literally able to escape punishment and so persist in these actions.

In no place is this clearer than in Israel, which is responsible for the deaths of more than 200 journalists in the recent period.

Effect on Society

The impact on society 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 safely.

On Thursday, CPJ meets for its yearly International Press Freedom awards. The statement there is the identical as my one for Trump: such events may occur. But it is our duty to make sure they do not.