🔗 Share this article

“Stuff occurs.” A mere phrase. That was enough for the US president to effectively dismiss what is probably the most notorious murder of a reporter of the last decade – and in so doing sank to a fresh depth in his contempt for the press, for the media – and for the truth.

Background Details

The US president’s dismissive attitude of the murder of prominent journalist Jamal Khashoggi came during a media briefing with the Saudi leader, Mohammed bin Salman – a man whom the CIA concluded in a recent assessment had ordered the kidnap and killing of the journalist in that year. (Prince Mohammed has denied involvement.)

The US intelligence services were not the only ones to determine the homicide – which took place in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and in which the 59-year-old journalist was drugged and cut apart – was signed off at the highest levels. An investigation led by former UN expert, the UN investigator, reached comparable findings.

International Response

For a short time, governments were unified in their criticism of the kingdom’s conduct. The US enacted sanctions and visa bans in that year over the killing, although it refrained of penalizing Prince Mohammed himself. Since then, the nation has been gradually restoring itself – and the crown prince’s visit to the US capital seemed to be the final confirmation of that rehabilitation.

White House Remarks

Critics of the government had roundly condemned the meeting. But what was on display at the White House was worse than could have been anticipated. Not only did the president fete the Saudi leader but he seemed to alter history – and then pointed fingers at the victim. The crown prince, Trump claimed when asked, knew nothing about the killing – in direct contradiction to what his nation’s intelligence services concluded four years ago. Moreover, Trump said: “Many individuals disliked that gentleman 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 little secret of his disdain for the facts – or for the press. He has smeared journalists (he called ABC news, whose journalist asked the inquiry about Khashoggi at the media event “fake news”), berated them in public (he called one a “piggy” this week for asking about his relationship with the convicted sex offender financier the convicted criminal), sued media organizations for large amounts of money in frivolous cases, and called for news outlets he doesn’t like to lose their licenses.

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 financial support for essential public media at home and vital independent media abroad.

Broader Implications

All of that has created an atmosphere in which journalists are manifestly less safe in the United States, but one in which their victimization – and indeed murder – becomes not just insignificant (“things happen”) but acceptable (“many individuals disliked that person”).

It is unsurprising that that year was the most lethal year on record for the press in the more than 30 years the press freedom organization has been tracking this data: a ongoing neglect to hold those responsible for reporter murders has created a environment without consequences in which journalists’ killers are actually able to get away with murder and so persist in these actions.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the Middle Eastern nation, which is accountable for the killing 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 undermining of reality. They are attacks on our rights to know and on our freedom to live freely and safely.

This week, CPJ meets for its yearly International Press Freedom awards. The statement there is the same as my one for the president: these things may occur. But it is our responsibility to make sure they cease.