Silencing Truth: The Price of Press Freedom
Murders of journalists like Jamal Khashoggi and Daphne Caruana Galizia reveal grave dangers to press freedom and accountability.
Topics: politics, media, individual and values
Example
On 2 October 2018, Jamal Khashoggi, a Washington Post columnist critical of Saudi Arabia's rulers, was killed inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. A UN expert found credible evidence in 2019 linking Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to the killing, and a US intelligence report in 2021 said he approved the operation; Saudi Arabia denies his involvement. In Malta, investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia was killed by a car bomb on 16 October 2017 while exposing corruption. Hitmen and bomb suppliers were jailed in 2022 and 2025, but in September 2026 a jury acquitted the businessman accused of ordering the murder; the state has appealed.
Key facts
- Jamal Khashoggi was killed inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on 2 October 2018; a UN expert found credible evidence linking the Crown Prince to the killing.
- A declassified US intelligence report in February 2021 assessed that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman approved the operation.
- Two brothers were jailed for 40 years in 2022 for carrying out the 2017 car-bomb murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia.
Limitations
- Two cases cannot show global trends in danger to journalists; use press freedom data for that. The Caruana Galizia case is still under appeal, so who ordered the killing is legally unresolved.
Evaluations
politics evaluation
Support
The Khashoggi killing shows a state reaching across borders to silence a critic, and the muted response from governments that valued Saudi trade shows how power shields the powerful.
Counterargument
There was some accountability: the UN investigation and the US intelligence report put the evidence on public record, and Saudi Arabia jailed several of the agents.
Rebuttal
Jailing junior agents while no senior figure faced trial is partial accountability at best; the record shows the limits of international pressure on an allied state.
Additional support
In Malta, the murder led to a public inquiry that found the state bore responsibility for creating a climate of impunity, showing how a democracy can be judged by its own process.
media evaluation
Support
Both journalists were killed for investigative work on powerful people, which is the kind of reporting that most needs protection and is most often attacked.
Counterargument
Their stories did not die with them: other outlets, such as the Daphne Project consortium, finished Caruana Galizia's investigations, so killing a reporter can spread the story further.
Rebuttal
Collaboration helps, but the chilling effect on local reporters who lack international backing remains, and fewer people may take up such work.
Additional support
The September 2026 acquittal in Malta shows that even with convictions of the hitmen, proving who ordered a killing is hard, which keeps the risk to journalists high.
individual and values evaluation
Support
Both cases show the personal cost of telling uncomfortable truths, a reminder that free expression depends on individuals willing to take great risks.
Counterargument
Some argue that journalists who campaign aggressively, as Caruana Galizia did through her blog, blur reporting and activism and should expect hostility.
Rebuttal
Hostility and criticism are part of public life; murder is not, and no style of reporting makes killing a journalist acceptable.
Additional support
Caruana Galizia's family kept pressing for justice for nine years, showing how individual persistence can keep a case alive when institutions are slow.
Sources
- Al Jazeera (2019-06-19): 'Credible evidence' links MBS to Khashoggi's murder: UN report
- Axios (2021-02-26): U.S. releases report finding Saudi prince approved Khashoggi operation
- Al Jazeera (2022-10-14): Brothers jailed for 40 years for murder of Maltese journalist
- Al Jazeera (2026-09-02): Malta businessman acquitted of plotting journalist Caruana Galizia murder