🔗 Share this article

“Things happen.” A mere phrase. That was enough for the US president 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 the press, for the media – and for the facts.

The Context

The American leader’s dismissal of the killing of prominent journalist the Washington Post columnist came during a media briefing with the Saudi leader, Mohammed bin Salman – a man whom the CIA concluded in a 2021 report had ordered the abduction and murder of the Washington Post columnist in 2018. (The crown prince has rejected accusations.)

The American spy agencies 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 sedated and cut apart – was signed off at the top echelons. An inquiry led by former UN expert, Agnès Callamard, reached comparable findings.

Global Reactions

For a short time, nations were unified in their condemnation of Saudi Arabia’s actions. The US imposed penalties and visa bans in that year over the murder, although it stopped short of penalizing the crown prince himself. Since then, the nation has been gradually restoring itself – and the crown prince’s visit to the US capital seemed to be the ultimate sign of that rehabilitation.

Presidential Comments

Opponents of the regime had roundly condemned the meeting. But what was evident at the presidential residence was worse than could have been imagined. Not only did the president fete Prince Mohammed but he seemed to alter the facts – and then pointed fingers at the deceased. Prince Mohammed, he asserted when asked, knew nothing about the killing – in direct contradiction to what his country’s own spy agencies concluded four years ago. Moreover, the president said: “A lot of people didn’t like that gentleman 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 low for a president who has made no attempt to hide of his contempt for the facts – or for the media. He has smeared journalists (he called a news network, whose reporter asked the question about the journalist at the Saudi press conference “false information”), berated them in public (he called one a “rude name” this week for asking about his connection with the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein), sued news outlets for eye-watering sums of money in frivolous cases, and called for media groups he doesn’t like to be shut down.

He has pressured established media 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 vital independent media internationally.

Wider Consequences

All of that has fostered an atmosphere in which reporters are manifestly less safe in the United States, but one in which their victimization – and indeed murder – becomes not just unimportant (“incidents occur”) but acceptable (“many individuals disliked that gentleman”).

It is unsurprising that that year was the deadliest year on record for journalists in the more than 30 years the press freedom organization has been documenting this information: a persistent failure to hold those accountable for reporter murders has created a environment without consequences in which those who murder reporters are literally able to get away with murder and so continue to do so.

In no place is this clearer than in Israel, which is accountable for the deaths of more than 200 journalists in the recent period.

Effect on Society

The impact on society is deep. Targeting reporters are assaults on facts. They are undermining of reality. They are violations of our entitlement to information and on our freedom to exist without fear and securely.

On Thursday, CPJ meets for its annual global journalism honors. My message at the event is the identical as my one for Trump: such events may occur. But it is our duty to make sure they cease.