The President's Dismissal regarding Khashoggi Killing Represents a Disturbing Development.

“Incidents take place.” A mere phrase. That was enough for the US president to effectively dismiss 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 disregard toward the press, for journalism – and for the truth.

Background Details

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

The American spy agencies were not the sole entities to conclude the murder – which occurred in the Saudi consulate in Turkey and in which the late journalist was drugged and dismembered – was signed off at the top echelons. An investigation led by former UN expert, Agnès Callamard, reached similar conclusions.

International Response

For a short time, governments were unified in their criticism of the kingdom’s conduct. The United States enacted sanctions and travel restrictions in that year over the killing, although it stopped short of penalizing the crown prince himself. Since then, the nation has been gradually restoring itself – and the leader’s trip to the US capital seemed to be the ultimate sign of that rehabilitation.

White House Remarks

Critics of the regime had strongly criticized the meeting. But what was evident at the White House was worse than could have been imagined. Not only did the president fete Prince Mohammed but he effectively rewrote the facts – and then blamed the victim. The crown prince, he asserted when asked, was unaware about the murder – in clear opposition to what his country’s own spy agencies determined previously. Moreover, Trump said: “A lot of people disliked that person that you’re talking about, whether you like him or didn’t like him, incidents occur.”

Pattern of Behavior

This marks a fresh and shameful low for a leader who has made little secret of his disdain for the truth – or for the media. He has defamed reporters (he called ABC news, whose journalist asked the inquiry about the journalist at the media event “fake news”), berated them in open settings (he called one a “piggy” this week for asking about his connection with the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein), taken legal action against news outlets for large amounts of money in vexatious law suits, and called for media groups he disapproves of to lose their licenses.

He has pressured veteran news services out of the White House press pool for refusing to use language of his preference, and he has slashed funding for vital news services at home and vital independent media abroad.

Broader Implications

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

It is unsurprising that that year was the most lethal year on file for journalists in the over three decades the press freedom organization has been tracking this data: a ongoing neglect to hold those responsible for journalist killings has created a environment without consequences in which those who murder reporters are actually able to escape punishment and so persist in these actions.

In no place is this clearer than in the Middle Eastern nation, which is accountable for the killing of over two hundred media workers in the recent period.

Effect on Society

The impact on society is profound. Attacks on journalists are attacks on the truth. They are undermining of reality. They are attacks on our rights to know and on our liberty to live freely and safely.

This week, CPJ meets for its annual International Press Freedom awards. My message at the event is the same as my one for Trump: these things may occur. But it is our responsibility to make sure they cease.