🔗 Share this article

“Stuff occurs.” A mere phrase. That’s all it took for the US president to brush off what is probably the most infamous journalist killing of the last decade – and in so doing sank to a fresh depth in his disregard toward the press, for journalism – and for the facts.

The Context

The American leader’s dismissal of the murder of prominent journalist the Washington Post columnist came during a media briefing with the Saudi crown prince, MBS – a man whom the US intelligence found in a recent assessment had ordered the kidnap and killing of the Washington Post columnist in 2018. (Prince Mohammed has denied involvement.)

The US intelligence services were not the sole entities to conclude the homicide – which occurred in the Saudi consulate in Turkey and in which the 59-year-old Khashoggi was drugged and cut apart – was signed off at the top echelons. An investigation led by then UN special rapporteur, Agnès Callamard, reached similar conclusions.

International Response

For a short time, nations were in agreement in their condemnation of the kingdom’s conduct. The United States imposed penalties and visa bans in that year over the murder, although it refrained of sanctioning the crown prince himself. Since then, the nation has been slowly rehabilitating itself – and the crown prince’s visit to Washington seemed to be the ultimate sign of that rehabilitation.

Presidential Comments

Critics of the regime had roundly condemned the meeting. But what was on display at the presidential residence was worse than could have been anticipated. Not only did Trump honor the Saudi leader but he seemed to alter history – and then pointed fingers at the victim. The crown prince, Trump claimed when asked, knew nothing about the murder – in clear opposition to what his nation’s intelligence services concluded previously. Moreover, the president said: “A lot of people didn’t like that person that you’re talking about, whether you like him or disapproved, things happen.”

Established Conduct

This represents a fresh and shameful low for a leader who has made no attempt to hide of his disdain for the facts – or for the press. He has smeared reporters (he called a news network, whose journalist asked the inquiry 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 connection with the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein), taken legal action against news outlets for large amounts of money in vexatious law suits, and called for news outlets he doesn’t like to be shut down.

He has forced veteran news services out of the White House press pool for declining to use language of his preference, and he has slashed funding for vital news services at home and vital independent media internationally.

Wider Consequences

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

It is unsurprising 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 documenting this data: a persistent failure to hold those accountable for reporter murders has established a culture of impunity in which those who murder reporters are literally able to escape punishment and so continue to do so.

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

Societal Impact

The impact on society is profound. Targeting reporters are attacks on the truth. They are attacks on facts. They are attacks on our entitlement to information and on our liberty to live freely and securely.

This week, CPJ gathers for its yearly International Press Freedom awards. The statement there is the same as my one for the president: such events may occur. But it is our duty to make sure they cease.