🔗 Share this article The President's Dismissal on Journalist's Murder Represents a New Low. “Things happen.” A mere phrase. That was enough for the US president to effectively dismiss what is arguably the most notorious murder of a reporter of the past ten years – and in so doing sank to a fresh depth in his contempt for journalists, 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 CIA concluded in a 2021 report had ordered the abduction and murder of the journalist in 2018. (The crown prince has denied involvement.) 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 journalist was sedated and cut apart – was signed off at the highest levels. An investigation led by then UN special rapporteur, Agnès Callamard, reached similar conclusions. International Response For a short time, nations were unified in their criticism of Saudi Arabia’s actions. The US imposed penalties and travel restrictions in that year over the murder, although it stopped short of sanctioning 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. White House Remarks Critics of the government had roundly condemned the meeting. But what was evident at the presidential residence was more alarming than could have been anticipated. Not only did Trump fete the Saudi leader but he seemed to alter history – and then blamed the deceased. The crown prince, he asserted when asked, knew nothing about the killing – in clear opposition to what his country’s own intelligence services determined previously. Moreover, Trump said: “Many individuals didn’t like that gentleman that you’re talking about, whether you like him or disapproved, incidents occur.” 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. Trump has defamed reporters (he called ABC news, whose reporter asked the question about the journalist at the media event “false information”), scolded them in open settings (he called one a “rude name” this week for asking about his connection with the convicted sex offender financier Jeffrey Epstein), taken legal action against media organizations for eye-watering sums of money in vexatious law suits, and called for media groups he disapproves of to be shut down. He has pressured veteran news services out of the official briefing group for refusing to use language of his preference, and he has slashed funding for essential public media at domestically and vital independent media internationally. Broader Implications All of that has created an environment in which journalists are clearly more vulnerable in the United States, but one in which their targeting – and indeed killing – becomes not just insignificant (“incidents occur”) but acceptable (“many individuals didn’t like that gentleman”). It is unsurprising that that year was the most lethal year on file for the press in the more than 30 years the press freedom organization has been tracking this information: a persistent failure to bring to justice those accountable for journalist killings has established a environment without consequences in which journalists’ killers are actually able to escape punishment and so persist in these actions. In no place is this more evident than in the Middle Eastern nation, which is responsible for the killing of more than 200 media workers in the recent period. Societal Impact The impact on the public is profound. Attacks on journalists are attacks on the truth. They are attacks on facts. They are violations of our entitlement to information and on our freedom to exist without fear and securely. This week, the Committee to Protect Journalists meets for its yearly global journalism honors. The statement there is the identical as my one for the president: these things may happen. But it is our responsibility to make sure they cease.