🔗 Share this article

“Things happen.” A mere phrase. That’s all it took for the US president 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 disregard toward journalists, for journalism – and for the facts.

The Context

The American leader’s dismissive attitude of the killing of well-known reporter Jamal Khashoggi came during a media briefing with the Saudi leader, MBS – a man whom the CIA concluded in a recent assessment had orchestrated the kidnap and killing of the journalist in 2018. (Prince Mohammed has rejected accusations.)

The American spy agencies were not the only ones to conclude the murder – which took place in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and in which the late Khashoggi was sedated and dismembered – was signed off at the highest levels. An investigation led by former UN expert, Agnès Callamard, reached comparable findings.

International Response

For a brief period, nations were unified in their criticism of the kingdom’s conduct. The US imposed sanctions and travel restrictions in that year over the murder, although it refrained of sanctioning Prince Mohammed himself. Since then, the nation has been gradually restoring itself – and the leader’s trip to the US capital seemed to be the final confirmation of that redemption.

White House Remarks

Critics of the regime had strongly criticized the meeting. But what was evident at the White House was more alarming than could have been anticipated. Not only did Trump fete Prince Mohammed but he seemed to alter the facts – and then blamed the deceased. The crown prince, he claimed when asked, knew nothing about the killing – in direct contradiction to what his nation’s intelligence services determined four years ago. Moreover, the president said: “Many individuals didn’t like that gentleman that you’re talking about, whether you like him or didn’t like him, things happen.”

Pattern of Behavior

This marks a new and abject point for a president who has made no attempt to hide of his contempt for the facts – or for the media. He has smeared reporters (he called a news network, whose reporter asked the question about the journalist at the Saudi press conference “false information”), scolded them in open settings (he called one a “piggy” this week for asking about his connection with the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein), taken legal action against media organizations for eye-watering sums of money in vexatious law suits, and called for media groups he doesn’t like to lose their licenses.

He has pressured veteran news services out of the official briefing group for declining to use terminology of his choosing, and he has slashed funding for essential public media at home and crucial free press internationally.

Wider Consequences

All of that has created an environment in which reporters are manifestly less safe in the United States, but one in which their targeting – and indeed murder – becomes not just insignificant (“things happen”) but acceptable (“a lot of people didn’t like that person”).

It is no surprise that that year was the deadliest year on file for the press in the over three decades the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has been documenting this data: a ongoing neglect to bring to justice those accountable for reporter murders has established a environment without consequences in which journalists’ killers are literally able to get away with murder and so continue to do so.

In no place is this more evident than in Israel, which is responsible for the killing of more than 200 journalists in the past two years.

Societal Impact

The impact on society is deep. Targeting reporters are attacks on the truth. They are undermining of reality. They are attacks on our rights to know and on our freedom 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 the president: such events may occur. But it is our responsibility to make sure they do not.