The President's Dismissal regarding Khashoggi Killing Represents a New Low.
“Stuff occurs.” Just two words. That’s all it took for Donald Trump to effectively dismiss what is probably the most infamous journalist killing of the past ten years – and in so doing sank to a fresh depth in his contempt for the press, for the media – and for the truth.
The Context
The American leader’s dismissal of the killing of prominent journalist Jamal Khashoggi came during a press conference with the Saudi leader, MBS – a man whom the US intelligence concluded in a recent assessment had ordered the kidnap and killing of the journalist in 2018. (The crown prince has rejected accusations.)
The American spy agencies were not the only ones to determine the murder – which occurred in the Saudi diplomatic building in Turkey and in which the late Khashoggi was sedated and dismembered – was approved at the top echelons. An investigation led by then UN special rapporteur, Agnès Callamard, reached similar conclusions.
Global Reactions
For a short time, nations were unified in their criticism of the kingdom’s conduct. The United States imposed penalties and visa bans in that year over the murder, although it stopped short of penalizing the crown prince himself. Since then, the kingdom has been gradually restoring itself – and the crown prince’s visit to the US capital seemed to be the ultimate sign of that rehabilitation.
White House Remarks
Opponents of the government had strongly criticized the visit. But what was evident at the White House was more alarming than could have been anticipated. Not only did Trump fete the Saudi leader but he effectively rewrote history – and then blamed the deceased. Prince Mohammed, Trump asserted when asked, was unaware about the murder – in direct contradiction to what his nation’s spy agencies concluded previously. Moreover, Trump said: “A lot of people disliked that gentleman that you’re talking about, whether you approve of him or disapproved, things happen.”
Pattern of Behavior
This represents a new and abject point for a leader who has made little secret of his contempt for the facts – or for the press. He has smeared journalists (he called a news network, whose reporter asked the inquiry about the journalist at the media event “false information”), scolded them in open settings (he called one a “piggy” this week for asking about his relationship with the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein), sued media organizations for eye-watering sums of money in vexatious law suits, and called for media groups he disapproves of to lose their licenses.
He has forced veteran news services out of the official briefing group for declining to use language of his choosing, and he has gutted financial support for vital news services at home and vital independent media internationally.
Wider Consequences
All of that has fostered an environment in which reporters are manifestly less safe in the United States, but one in which their targeting – and indeed murder – becomes not just insignificant (“incidents occur”) but acceptable (“a lot of people disliked that gentleman”).
It is no surprise that that year was the most lethal year on file for the press in the more than 30 years the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has been documenting this data: a ongoing neglect to hold those responsible for journalist killings has established a environment without consequences in which journalists’ killers are actually able to escape punishment and so continue to do so.
In no place is this more evident than in the Middle Eastern nation, which is accountable for the deaths of more than 200 media workers in the recent period.
Societal Impact
The impact on the public is profound. Targeting reporters are attacks on the truth. They are attacks on facts. They are attacks on our entitlement to information and on our freedom to exist without fear and safely.
On Thursday, the Committee to Protect Journalists gathers for its annual global journalism honors. My message there is the identical as my one for the president: such events may occur. But it is our responsibility to make sure they cease.