🔗 Share this article

“Stuff occurs.” A mere phrase. That’s all it took for the US president to effectively dismiss what is probably the most notorious murder of a reporter of the past ten years – and in so doing sank to a fresh depth 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 press conference with the Saudi leader, Mohammed bin Salman – a man whom the US intelligence found in a 2021 report had ordered the kidnap and killing of the journalist in 2018. (The crown prince has denied involvement.)

The US intelligence services were not the only ones to determine the murder – which occurred in the Saudi consulate in Turkey and in which the late Khashoggi was sedated and dismembered – was approved at the highest levels. An inquiry led by former UN expert, Agnès Callamard, reached comparable findings.

Global Reactions

For a brief period, nations were unified in their condemnation of Saudi Arabia’s actions. The United States enacted penalties and visa bans in that year over the killing, although it stopped short of sanctioning the crown prince himself. Since then, the kingdom has been slowly rehabilitating itself – and the leader’s trip to Washington seemed to be the final confirmation of that rehabilitation.

White House Remarks

Critics of the regime had strongly criticized the visit. But what was evident at the White House was worse than could have been imagined. Not only did Trump honor the Saudi leader but he seemed to alter the facts – and then blamed the deceased. Prince Mohammed, Trump claimed when asked, was unaware about the killing – in clear opposition to what his nation’s spy agencies concluded four years ago. Moreover, Trump said: “Many individuals disliked that gentleman that you’re talking about, whether you like him or didn’t like him, incidents occur.”

Established Conduct

This marks a new and abject low for a president who has made no attempt to hide of his contempt for the facts – or for the media. He has defamed journalists (he called a news network, whose journalist asked the inquiry about the journalist at the media event “false information”), scolded them in open settings (he called one a “rude name” this week for asking about his connection with the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein), sued media organizations for eye-watering sums of money in vexatious law suits, and called for media groups he doesn’t like to be shut down.

He has pressured veteran news services out of the White House press pool for refusing to use language of his preference, and he has gutted funding for essential public media at home and crucial free press abroad.

Broader Implications

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 killing – becomes not just unimportant (“things happen”) but tolerated (“a lot of people disliked that person”).

It is unsurprising that that year was the most lethal year on file for journalists in the more than 30 years 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 journalists’ killers are literally able to get away with murder and so persist in these actions.

Nowhere is this more evident than in Israel, which is responsible for the deaths of more than 200 journalists in the past two years.

Effect on Society

The effect on the public is deep. Targeting reporters are attacks on the truth. They are undermining of reality. They are violations of our rights to know and on our liberty to live freely and safely.

On Thursday, CPJ meets for its annual International Press Freedom awards. The statement there is the same as my message for the president: such events may occur. But it is our duty to make sure they cease.