🔗 Share this article

“Incidents take place.” Just two words. That’s all it took for Donald Trump to brush off what is probably the most infamous murder of a reporter 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 facts.

Background Details

The US president’s dismissive attitude of the killing of well-known reporter the Washington Post columnist came during a media briefing with the Saudi leader, Mohammed bin Salman – a man whom the CIA found in a recent assessment had ordered the abduction and murder of the Washington Post columnist in that year. (The crown prince has denied involvement.)

The American spy agencies were not the sole entities to determine the homicide – which occurred in the Saudi consulate in Turkey and in which the late journalist was drugged 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 short time, nations were in agreement in their criticism of the kingdom’s conduct. The US enacted sanctions and visa bans in that year over the murder, although it stopped short of sanctioning Prince Mohammed himself. Since then, the kingdom has been gradually restoring itself – and the leader’s trip to the US capital seemed to be the final confirmation of that redemption.

Presidential Comments

Critics of the regime had roundly condemned the visit. But what was evident at the presidential residence was worse than could have been imagined. Not only did Trump honor Prince Mohammed but he seemed to alter the facts – and then pointed fingers at the deceased. The crown prince, Trump claimed when asked, knew nothing about the killing – in direct contradiction to what his nation’s spy agencies determined previously. Moreover, the president said: “Many individuals didn’t like that person that you’re talking about, whether you like him or disapproved, things happen.”

Pattern of Behavior

This marks a fresh and shameful low for a president who has made little secret of his contempt for the facts – or for the press. He has smeared reporters (he called a news network, whose reporter asked the inquiry about the journalist at the media event “false information”), scolded them in public (he called one a “rude name” this week for asking about his relationship with the disgraced financier the convicted criminal), sued news outlets for large amounts 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 official briefing group for refusing to use language of his preference, and he has gutted financial support for essential public media at home and crucial free press abroad.

Wider Consequences

All of that has created an atmosphere in which reporters are clearly more vulnerable in the United States, but one in which their victimization – and indeed killing – becomes not just insignificant (“incidents occur”) but tolerated (“a lot of people disliked that gentleman”).

It is unsurprising that that year was the deadliest 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 responsible for reporter murders has created a culture of impunity in which those who murder reporters are literally able to get away with murder 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 impact on the public is profound. Attacks on journalists are assaults on facts. 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 gathers for its annual global journalism honors. The statement at the event is the same as my message for the president: these things may happen. But it is our duty to make sure they do not.