🔗 Share this article

“Incidents take place.” Just two words. That was enough for Donald Trump to effectively dismiss what is arguably the most infamous murder of a reporter of the last decade – 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 killing of prominent journalist the Washington Post columnist came during a press conference with the Saudi leader, MBS – 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 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 signed off at the top echelons. An investigation led by then UN special rapporteur, Agnès Callamard, reached similar conclusions.

International Response

For a brief period, nations were in agreement in their criticism of the kingdom’s conduct. The US enacted sanctions and travel restrictions in that year over the murder, although it refrained of penalizing the crown prince himself. Since then, the nation has been slowly rehabilitating itself – and the leader’s trip to Washington seemed to be the final confirmation of that rehabilitation.

Presidential Comments

Critics of the regime had roundly condemned the visit. But what was on display at the White House was more alarming than could have been imagined. Not only did the president fete the Saudi leader but he seemed to alter history – and then blamed the deceased. The crown prince, Trump asserted when asked, knew nothing about the murder – in direct contradiction to what his country’s own spy agencies determined previously. Moreover, Trump said: “A lot of people disliked that person that you’re talking about, whether you like him or disapproved, things happen.”

Established Conduct

This marks a fresh and shameful low for a leader who has made little secret of his disdain for the facts – or for the media. He has defamed reporters (he called ABC news, whose reporter asked the inquiry about Khashoggi at the media event “fake news”), scolded them in open settings (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 terminology of his preference, and he has slashed funding for essential public media at home and crucial free press abroad.

Wider Consequences

All of that has fostered an atmosphere in which reporters are clearly more vulnerable in the United States, but one in which their victimization – and indeed murder – becomes not just unimportant (“incidents occur”) but tolerated (“a lot of people didn’t like that person”).

It is no surprise that that year was the most lethal year on record for journalists in the over three decades the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has been tracking this data: a ongoing neglect to hold those accountable for journalist killings has created a environment without consequences in which those who murder reporters are literally able to get away with murder and so continue to do so.

Nowhere is this clearer than in Israel, which is responsible for the killing of more than 200 journalists in the past two years.

Effect on Society

The effect on society is deep. Targeting reporters are attacks on the truth. They are undermining of reality. They are violations of our rights to know and on our liberty to live freely and safely.

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