🔗 Share this article

“Things happen.” A mere phrase. That was enough for the US president to effectively dismiss what is arguably the most infamous journalist killing of the last decade – and in so doing sank to a fresh depth in his contempt for the press, for journalism – and for the facts.

Background Details

The American leader’s dismissive attitude of the murder of well-known reporter the Washington Post columnist came during a media briefing with the Saudi crown prince, MBS – a man whom the CIA found in a 2021 report had orchestrated the abduction and murder of the journalist in 2018. (Prince Mohammed has rejected accusations.)

The US intelligence services were not the sole entities to determine the murder – which occurred in the Saudi diplomatic building in Turkey and in which the 59-year-old journalist was sedated and dismembered – was approved at the top echelons. An inquiry led by then UN special rapporteur, the UN investigator, reached similar conclusions.

Global Reactions

For a brief period, nations were unified in their criticism of the kingdom’s conduct. The United States imposed penalties and travel restrictions in 2021 over the killing, although it refrained of sanctioning the crown prince himself. Since then, the nation has been slowly rehabilitating itself – and the leader’s trip to the US capital seemed to be the final confirmation of that rehabilitation.

Presidential Comments

Critics of the government had roundly condemned the visit. But what was on display at the presidential residence was worse than could have been anticipated. Not only did the president fete Prince Mohammed but he seemed to alter history – and then blamed the victim. The crown prince, he claimed when asked, was unaware about the killing – in direct contradiction to what his nation’s spy agencies determined previously. Moreover, the president said: “Many individuals didn’t like that person that you’re talking about, whether you approve of him or didn’t like him, things happen.”

Pattern of Behavior

This marks a fresh and shameful point for a leader who has made little secret of his contempt for the facts – or for the media. He has defamed reporters (he called a news network, whose journalist 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 news outlets for large amounts of money in frivolous cases, and called for news outlets he disapproves of to be shut down.

He has forced veteran news services out of the White House press pool for refusing to use terminology of his preference, and he has gutted funding for vital news services at domestically and vital independent media abroad.

Broader Implications

All of that has fostered an atmosphere in which journalists are manifestly less safe in the United States, but one in which their targeting – and indeed killing – becomes not just insignificant (“incidents occur”) but acceptable (“a lot of people disliked that gentleman”).

It is unsurprising that that year was the deadliest year on record for the press in the more than 30 years the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has been tracking this information: a persistent failure to bring to justice those accountable for journalist killings has created a culture of impunity in which journalists’ killers are literally 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 media workers in the past two years.

Societal Impact

The effect on society is profound. Targeting reporters are assaults on facts. They are attacks on facts. They are violations of our rights to know and on our freedom to live freely and safely.

This week, CPJ meets for its annual global journalism honors. The statement there is the identical as my one for the president: these things may happen. But it is our duty to make sure they do not.