🔗 Share this article

“Incidents take place.” Just two words. That’s all it took for the US president to brush off what is arguably the most infamous journalist killing of the past ten years – and in so doing plumbed a new low in his contempt for journalists, for the media – and for the truth.

The Context

The American leader’s dismissive attitude of the killing of prominent journalist the Washington Post columnist came during a media briefing with the Saudi leader, MBS – a man whom the CIA concluded in a recent assessment had orchestrated the kidnap and killing of the Washington Post columnist in 2018. (Prince Mohammed has denied involvement.)

The American spy agencies were not the sole entities to determine the homicide – which took place in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and in which the 59-year-old journalist was sedated and dismembered – was signed off at the highest levels. An inquiry led by then UN special rapporteur, the UN investigator, reached similar conclusions.

International Response

For a brief period, governments were unified in their criticism of Saudi Arabia’s actions. The United States imposed sanctions and travel restrictions in that year over the murder, although it stopped short of penalizing Prince Mohammed himself. Since then, the nation has been slowly rehabilitating itself – and the leader’s trip to Washington seemed to be the ultimate sign of that redemption.

White House Remarks

Opponents of the government had roundly condemned the visit. 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 seemed to alter history – and then blamed the victim. The crown prince, Trump asserted when asked, was unaware about the murder – in direct contradiction to what his country’s own intelligence services concluded previously. Moreover, the president said: “A lot of people disliked that person that you’re talking about, whether you like him or didn’t like him, incidents occur.”

Established Conduct

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 journalists (he called ABC news, whose reporter asked the inquiry about the journalist at the media event “fake news”), scolded them in open settings (he called one a “rude name” this week for asking about his connection with the convicted sex offender financier the convicted criminal), sued news outlets for large amounts of money in frivolous cases, and called for media groups he disapproves of to be shut down.

He has pressured veteran news services out of the White House press pool for declining to use language of his choosing, and he has slashed financial support for vital news services at home and crucial free press internationally.

Broader Implications

All of that has created an atmosphere in which reporters are manifestly less safe in the US, but one in which their victimization – and indeed murder – becomes not just insignificant (“incidents occur”) but tolerated (“many individuals didn’t like that gentleman”).

It is no surprise that 2024 was the deadliest year on file for journalists in the over three decades the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has been documenting this data: a persistent failure to hold those accountable for journalist killings has created a environment without consequences in which journalists’ killers are actually able to escape punishment and so continue to do so.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the Middle Eastern nation, which is responsible for the killing of over two hundred journalists in the past two years.

Societal Impact

The effect on society is deep. Targeting reporters are attacks on the truth. They are undermining of reality. They are attacks on our rights to know and on our liberty to exist without fear and safely.

This week, CPJ gathers for its annual International Press Freedom awards. My message there is the same as my one for the president: such events may occur. But it is our duty to make sure they do not.