🔗 Share this article

“Stuff occurs.” Just two words. That was enough for the US president 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 journalists, for journalism – and for the facts.

Background Details

The American leader’s dismissal of the killing of well-known reporter the Washington Post columnist came during a press conference with the Saudi leader, Mohammed bin Salman – a man whom the US intelligence found in a 2021 report had ordered the kidnap and killing of the journalist in 2018. (The crown prince has rejected accusations.)

The US intelligence services were not the sole entities to conclude the homicide – which occurred in the Saudi consulate in Turkey and in which the 59-year-old journalist was sedated and cut apart – was signed off at the highest levels. An investigation led by former UN expert, the UN investigator, reached similar conclusions.

Global Reactions

For a short time, governments were unified in their criticism of Saudi Arabia’s actions. The United States imposed penalties and visa bans in that year over the murder, although it stopped short of sanctioning the crown prince himself. Since then, the kingdom has been slowly rehabilitating itself – and the leader’s trip to the US capital seemed to be the final confirmation of that rehabilitation.

White House Remarks

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 Trump honor Prince Mohammed but he seemed to alter the facts – and then blamed the deceased. The crown prince, Trump claimed when asked, knew nothing about the murder – in clear opposition to what his nation’s spy agencies concluded four years ago. Moreover, the president said: “A lot of people disliked that gentleman that you’re talking about, whether you like him or disapproved, things happen.”

Established Conduct

This marks a new and abject point for a president who has made little secret of his disdain for the facts – or for the media. 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 convicted sex offender financier Jeffrey Epstein), sued media organizations for large amounts of money in vexatious law suits, and called for media groups he doesn’t like to be shut down.

He has forced veteran news services out of the official briefing group for refusing to use terminology of his choosing, and he has gutted funding for vital news services at home and vital independent media internationally.

Wider Consequences

All of that has created an environment in which journalists are manifestly less safe in the US, but one in which their victimization – and indeed murder – becomes not just unimportant (“things happen”) but tolerated (“many individuals disliked that person”).

It is unsurprising that that year was the deadliest year on file for journalists in the over three decades the press freedom organization 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.

Nowhere is this clearer than in Israel, which is accountable for the deaths of more than 200 journalists in the past two years.

Societal Impact

The effect on the public is profound. Attacks on journalists are attacks on the truth. They are attacks on facts. They are violations of our rights to know and on our liberty to live freely and securely.

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