🔗 Share this article

“Incidents take place.” Just two words. That was enough for the US president to effectively dismiss what is probably the most notorious journalist killing of the last decade – and in so doing sank to a fresh depth in his contempt for journalists, for journalism – and for the truth.

The Context

The US president’s dismissive attitude of the killing of well-known reporter the Washington Post columnist came during a media briefing with the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman – a man whom the US intelligence found in a 2021 report had ordered the abduction and murder of the Washington Post columnist in 2018. (Prince Mohammed has rejected accusations.)

The US intelligence services were not the sole entities to determine the homicide – which occurred in the Saudi consulate in Turkey and in which the late journalist was drugged and cut apart – was approved at the top echelons. An inquiry led by then UN special rapporteur, the UN investigator, reached comparable findings.

Global Reactions

For a short time, nations were unified in their condemnation of Saudi Arabia’s actions. The US enacted sanctions and travel restrictions in 2021 over the killing, although it refrained of penalizing Prince Mohammed himself. Since then, the nation has been gradually restoring itself – and the leader’s trip to Washington seemed to be the final confirmation of that redemption.

Presidential Comments

Critics of the government had roundly condemned the meeting. But what was evident at the White House was worse than could have been anticipated. Not only did the president honor the Saudi leader but he effectively rewrote history – and then pointed fingers at the victim. Prince Mohammed, Trump claimed when asked, knew nothing about the killing – in clear opposition to what his nation’s intelligence services concluded four years ago. Moreover, Trump said: “A lot of people disliked that person that you’re talking about, whether you approve of him or didn’t like him, things happen.”

Established Conduct

This marks a fresh and shameful point for a president who has made no attempt to hide of his disdain for the facts – or for the media. He has smeared reporters (he called a news network, whose reporter asked the question about the journalist at the Saudi press conference “fake news”), berated them in public (he called one a “piggy” this week for asking about his connection with the disgraced financier the convicted criminal), taken legal action against news outlets for eye-watering sums of money in vexatious law suits, and called for news outlets he doesn’t like to be shut down.

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

Broader Implications

All of that has fostered an environment in which journalists are clearly more vulnerable in the United States, but one in which their targeting – and indeed murder – becomes not just unimportant (“incidents occur”) but acceptable (“a lot of people didn’t like that person”).

It is no surprise that that year was the most lethal year on record for journalists in the over three decades the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has been tracking this data: a ongoing neglect to bring to justice those responsible 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 clearer than in Israel, which is accountable for the deaths of more than 200 media workers in the recent period.

Effect on Society

The impact on the public is profound. Targeting reporters are assaults on facts. They are attacks on facts. They are attacks on our rights to know and on our liberty to exist without fear and safely.

This week, the Committee to Protect Journalists meets for its yearly International Press Freedom awards. The statement there is the identical as my message for the president: these things may occur. But it is our duty to make sure they cease.