🔗 Share this article

“Stuff occurs.” A mere phrase. That’s all it took for the US president 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 disregard toward the press, for the media – and for the facts.

Background Details

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 found in a 2021 report had orchestrated the abduction and murder of the Washington Post columnist in 2018. (The crown prince has rejected accusations.)

The US intelligence services were not the sole entities to determine the homicide – which took place in the Saudi diplomatic building in Istanbul and in which the 59-year-old Khashoggi was drugged and cut apart – was approved at the highest levels. An investigation led by former UN expert, Agnès Callamard, reached similar conclusions.

International Response

For a short time, nations were in agreement in their criticism of Saudi Arabia’s actions. The US enacted sanctions and visa bans in that year over the murder, although it refrained of sanctioning the crown prince 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

Opponents of the regime had roundly condemned the meeting. But what was on display at the presidential residence was worse than could have been imagined. Not only did the president honor Prince Mohammed but he seemed to alter history – and then blamed the deceased. Prince Mohammed, he asserted when asked, knew nothing about the killing – in clear opposition to what his nation’s spy agencies concluded previously. Moreover, the president said: “Many individuals disliked that gentleman that you’re talking about, whether you like him or disapproved, things happen.”

Established Conduct

This represents a new and abject low for a leader who has made no attempt to hide of his disdain for the facts – or for the media. Trump has defamed journalists (he called ABC news, whose reporter asked the question about Khashoggi at the media event “fake news”), scolded them in open settings (he called one a “piggy” this week for asking about his relationship with the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein), taken legal action against media organizations for large amounts of money in frivolous cases, and called for media groups he doesn’t like to be shut down.

He has forced veteran news services out of the White House press pool for refusing to use language of his choosing, and he has slashed financial support for essential public media at domestically and crucial free press internationally.

Wider Consequences

All of that has fostered an environment in which reporters are clearly more vulnerable in the US, but one in which their victimization – 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 file for the press in the over three decades the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has been documenting this information: a persistent failure to hold those responsible for reporter murders has created a culture of impunity in which those who murder reporters are actually 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 over two hundred journalists in the recent period.

Effect on Society

The impact on society is profound. 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 live freely and safely.

On Thursday, the Committee to Protect Journalists meets for its annual International Press Freedom awards. My message at the event is the same as my one for the president: these things may occur. But it is our responsibility to make sure they do not.