🔗 Share this article

“Incidents take place.” Just two words. That was enough for Donald Trump to brush off what is probably the most infamous murder of a reporter of the past ten years – and in so doing sank to a fresh depth in his contempt for the press, for the media – and for the truth.

The Context

The American leader’s dismissal of the killing of prominent journalist the Washington Post columnist came during a media briefing with the Saudi leader, MBS – a man whom the CIA found in a recent assessment had orchestrated the abduction and murder of the Washington Post columnist in that year. (The crown prince has denied involvement.)

The US intelligence services were not the only ones to conclude the murder – which occurred in the Saudi diplomatic building in Istanbul and in which the 59-year-old journalist was drugged and cut apart – was approved at the highest levels. An inquiry led by former UN expert, Agnès Callamard, 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 travel restrictions in that year over the killing, although it refrained of sanctioning the crown prince himself. Since then, the nation has been gradually restoring itself – and the crown prince’s visit to Washington seemed to be the ultimate sign of that redemption.

Presidential Comments

Critics of the regime had roundly condemned the visit. But what was on display at the White House was worse than could have been anticipated. Not only did the president fete Prince Mohammed but he seemed to alter the facts – and then blamed the victim. The crown prince, Trump asserted when asked, was unaware about the killing – in clear opposition to what his country’s own spy agencies concluded previously. Moreover, Trump said: “Many individuals disliked that gentleman that you’re talking about, whether you like him or disapproved, things happen.”

Pattern of Behavior

This marks a fresh and shameful low for a president who has made no attempt to hide of his disdain for the facts – or for the press. He has smeared journalists (he called ABC news, whose journalist asked the question about Khashoggi at the Saudi press conference “false information”), scolded them in public (he called one a “rude name” this week for asking about his relationship with the convicted sex offender financier the convicted criminal), taken legal action against media organizations for large amounts of money in vexatious law suits, and called for media groups he disapproves of to lose their licenses.

He has forced veteran news services out of the White House press pool for refusing to use terminology of his preference, and he has gutted financial support for essential public media at home and crucial free press internationally.

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 targeting – and indeed murder – becomes not just unimportant (“things happen”) but tolerated (“a lot of people disliked that gentleman”).

It is unsurprising that that year was the most lethal year on file for journalists in the over three decades the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has been tracking this information: a ongoing neglect to hold those responsible 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 more than 200 journalists in the recent period.

Societal Impact

The effect on society is deep. Attacks on journalists are attacks on the truth. They are undermining of reality. 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 meets for its annual International Press Freedom awards. My message at the event is the identical as my one for Trump: such events may happen. But it is our responsibility to make sure they cease.