If only the mainstream media valued Yemeni lives as much as Jamal Khashoggi’s

Jamal Khashoggi, pictured in 2018

Jamal Khashoggi entered the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul on 2 October; and he hasn’t been seen since. Many fear that the Washington Post journalist and key critic of Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman was killed on the orders of the latter.

It is no secret, however, that Saudi Arabia is a brutal and murderous dictatorship. For years, it has been killing Yemeni civilians (including children), stoning homosexuals, and executing human-rights activists. But for many within Western media and political circles, Khashoggi’s probable murder is apparently the line in the sand. Only now, they say, is it time to confront Saudi Arabia.

In short, while Khashoggi’s probable murder is indeed tragic, it reveals everything about the Western media’s perception of worthy and unworthy victims.

The Washington Post’s line in the sand

For over a decade, the Washington Post has been heaping praise on Saudi Arabia for its supposed ‘reforms’. In April 2017, journalist David Ignatius claimed bin Salman was “reimagining Saudi Arabia”, saying “reform plans appear to be moving ahead slowly but steadily”. But a year later, reports revealed that the country had authorised “48 beheadings in [the] four months of 2018” – half for non-violent charges.

Washington Post owner and world’s richest man Jeff Bezos, meanwhile, was apparently too busy schmoozing with Mohammed bin Salman to notice.

In March 2018, US senators Bernie Sanders, Mike Lee, and Chris Murphy proposed legislation to end US support for Saudi Arabia’s devastating war against Yemen. The US Senate killed the bill, with the support of papers like the Post, whose editorial board claimed in the same month that “a better approach would be to condition further American military aid on humanitarian relief measures”.

On 11 October, Ben Cardin of the Post wrote about Khashoggi’s probable murder: “the United States cannot be silent or remain inert in the face of an insidious assault against universal values”.

In short, while assaults against universal values are nothing new in Saudi Arabia, the Western media’s whole-scale disgust at them certainly appears to be.

The New York Times’s line in the sand

Since the 1950s, the New York Times has consistently described the Saudi royalty using talk of ‘reform’.

Times columnist Thomas Friedman faces particular allegations of frequently painting bin Salman and the Saudi regime in a good light. In November 2017, for instance, Friedman wrote:

The crown prince has big plans to bring back a level of tolerance to his society.

But on 8 October 2018, Friedman wrote that, if Saudi Arabia had killed Jamal Khashoggi, “it will be a disaster for the regime of Mohammed bin Salman”.

While Saudi Arabia was provoking what most people accept to be the world’s worst humanitarian crisis in Yemen, the Times presented bin Salman as a man of reform. But for many Times contributors, Khashoggi’s alleged murder is a step too far.

For the US government, is there a line in the sand?

On 11 October, Donald Trump responded to the possible murder of Khashoggi, saying “we don’t like it even a little bit”. But what he and the US establishment do like is the vast amount of money they make from arms sales. So he added:

as to whether or not we should stop $110bn from being spent in this country, knowing they have four or five alternatives…, that would not be acceptable to me.

The co-founder of the Democratic Coalition, Scott Dworkin, urged Trump to:

do what a real American president would do. Confront Saudi Arabia about this vicious murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.

But Trump is already operating very much how a ‘real American president would do’. Because his policy in Saudi Arabia differs little from that of Barack Obama or decades of US presidents before him. Profits, as always, reign over principles.

As journalist Glenn Greenwald pointed out:

We should, of course, welcome the fact that many people in the US are now criticising the Saudi regime. But for far too many innocent civilians in Yemen, it’s too little, too late.

Get Involved!

– Follow and Support Campaign Against Arms Trade.

– Read more of our coverage of Saudi Arabia.

Support The Canary if you appreciate the work we do.

Featured image via POMED

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us

Comments are closed