🔗 Share this article

“Incidents take place.” Just two words. That’s all it took for Donald Trump to effectively dismiss what is arguably the most notorious murder of a reporter of the past ten years – and in so doing plumbed a new low in his contempt for journalists, for the media – and for the facts.

Background Details

The US president’s dismissal of the killing of well-known reporter the Washington Post columnist came during a media briefing with the Saudi leader, Mohammed bin Salman – a man whom the US intelligence found in a recent assessment had orchestrated the abduction and murder of the journalist in that year. (The crown prince has denied involvement.)

The US intelligence services were not the only ones to conclude the homicide – which took place in the Saudi consulate in Turkey and in which the late journalist was drugged and cut apart – was signed off at the top echelons. An investigation led by former UN expert, Agnès Callamard, reached comparable findings.

International Response

For a brief period, nations were unified in their condemnation of the kingdom’s conduct. The United States enacted penalties and travel restrictions in 2021 over the killing, although it refrained of penalizing Prince Mohammed himself. Since then, the kingdom has been slowly rehabilitating itself – and the leader’s trip to the US capital seemed to be the ultimate sign of that rehabilitation.

Presidential Comments

Critics of the government had roundly condemned the meeting. But what was evident at the White House was more alarming than could have been anticipated. Not only did the president honor Prince Mohammed but he seemed to alter the facts – and then pointed fingers at the deceased. The crown prince, he claimed when asked, was unaware about the murder – in direct contradiction to what his country’s own intelligence services concluded four years ago. Moreover, Trump said: “A lot of people didn’t like that person that you’re talking about, whether you approve of him or didn’t like him, things happen.”

Established Conduct

This represents a fresh and shameful low for a president who has made no attempt to hide of his contempt 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”), berated them in public (he called one a “piggy” this week for asking about his relationship with the disgraced financier the convicted criminal), sued 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 established media out of the White House press pool for declining to use terminology of his preference, and he has slashed funding for vital news services at domestically and crucial free press abroad.

Wider Consequences

All of that has fostered an atmosphere 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 (“many individuals didn’t like that gentleman”).

It is unsurprising that that year was the deadliest year on file for journalists in the over three decades the press freedom organization 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 escape punishment and so persist in these actions.

Nowhere is this clearer than in Israel, which is responsible for the deaths of more than 200 media workers in the past two years.

Societal Impact

The effect on society is deep. Targeting reporters 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 securely.

This week, CPJ meets for its yearly International Press Freedom awards. My message there is the identical as my one for Trump: such events may happen. But it is our duty to make sure they do not.