🔗 Share this article

“Stuff occurs.” A mere phrase. That was enough for Donald Trump 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 the media – and for the facts.

Background Details

The American leader’s dismissal of the killing of prominent journalist the Washington Post columnist came during a press conference with the Saudi leader, MBS – a man whom the CIA concluded in a recent assessment had orchestrated the kidnap and killing of the Washington Post columnist in that year. (Prince Mohammed has rejected accusations.)

The American spy agencies were not the only ones to determine the murder – which took place in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and in which the late journalist was drugged and cut apart – was approved at the highest levels. An inquiry led by former UN expert, the UN investigator, reached comparable findings.

Global Reactions

For a short time, governments were in agreement in their condemnation of Saudi Arabia’s actions. The US imposed sanctions and visa bans in that year over the murder, 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 final confirmation of that redemption.

Presidential Comments

Critics of the government had strongly criticized the visit. But what was on display at the presidential residence was more alarming than could have been imagined. Not only did the president fete the Saudi leader but he effectively rewrote the facts – and then blamed the deceased. The crown prince, he claimed when asked, was unaware about the murder – in clear opposition to what his country’s own intelligence services determined previously. Moreover, the president said: “Many individuals didn’t like that gentleman that you’re talking about, whether you like him or disapproved, things happen.”

Pattern of Behavior

This represents a fresh and shameful low for a leader who has made little secret of his contempt for the truth – or for the press. He has defamed journalists (he called ABC news, whose reporter asked the inquiry about Khashoggi at the media event “false information”), scolded them in public (he called one a “rude name” this week for asking about his relationship with the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein), sued media organizations for large amounts of money in frivolous cases, and called for news outlets he doesn’t like to be shut down.

He has forced established media out of the official briefing group for declining to use terminology of his choosing, and he has gutted financial support for vital news services at domestically and crucial free press abroad.

Broader Implications

All of that has created an environment in which reporters are manifestly less safe in the US, but one in which their targeting – and indeed murder – becomes not just insignificant (“things happen”) but acceptable (“many individuals disliked 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 documenting this data: a ongoing neglect to bring to justice those accountable for journalist killings has established a culture of impunity in which those who murder reporters are actually able to escape punishment and so persist in these actions.

In no place is this more evident than in the Middle Eastern nation, which is responsible for the deaths of over two hundred journalists in the past two years.

Effect on Society

The effect on society is deep. Attacks on journalists are assaults on facts. They are attacks on facts. They are attacks on our entitlement to information and on our liberty to exist without fear and securely.

This week, the Committee to Protect Journalists gathers for its yearly global journalism honors. The statement there is the identical as my one for the president: such events may happen. But it is our duty to make sure they do not.