Spin Spectrum Daily 11-20-2025

ABC Reporter Confronts Saudi Leader

Before we dive in, I need to say two things. First, thank you to everyone who stepped up: you pushed XVOA from 67 paid readers to 75 and put us within striking distance of “bestseller” status which requires 100 paid subscribers.

Second, if you’ve been on the fence, this is not the moment to stay there. Upgrading to paid now is the difference between this work staying niche and breaking into the wider conversation.

---

ABC Reporter Confronts Saudi Leader: A Media Rorschach Test

An Oval Office clash between President Donald Trump and ABC News correspondent Mary Bruce over the 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi is being interpreted in starkly different ways across the media spectrum. In the heated exchange, Trump defended Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) by downplaying Khashoggi’s killing as “extremely controversial” and insisting MBS “knew nothing about it,” even telling Bruce, “You don’t have to embarrass our guest by asking a question like that” . Within 24 hours, liberal outlets expressed outrage at Trump’s stance; centrist reports stuck to the facts of the meeting; and conservative media focused on Trump’s rebuke of the reporter and the promise of new U.S.-Saudi deals.

What Liberal Media Emphasized

Liberal-leaning publications zeroed in on Trump’s dismissal of human rights concerns and his attack on the press. The Washington Post’s editorial board blasted Trump’s remarks as “weak” and “crass,” saying his distortion of Khashoggi’s murder “dishonor[s] Khashoggi’s legacy” and is “beneath the office of the president” . The Guardian observed that Trump “shrugged off” the Saudi regime’s culpability while noting he claimed the slain Post columnist was “extremely controversial” and that “things happen” even as U.S. intelligence concluded MBS approved the assassination .

1: Ideology spectrum for 12 outlets covering the Trump–MBS–Khashoggi clash (−3 = most liberal, +3 = most conservative, based on public bias ratings plus how each article framed the story).

Several liberal outlets highlighted Trump’s pattern of siding with autocrats over journalists. CNN described Trump “angrily” dismissing the Khashoggi question and doubling down on MBS’s denials . Coverage in The Independent underscored that Trump “lost his temper” at Bruce, “yelling” that she asked a “horrible, insubordinate” question by bringing up Khashoggi and 9/11 victims’ families . This framing cast Trump as prioritizing personal rapport and business ties with MBS over accountability for a brutal murder which is a stance liberal commentators deemed “beyond sickening” in light of Khashoggi’s fate .

Just as importantly, left-of-center media seized on Trump’s hostility toward the reporter. They noted he berated Bruce as “fake news…one of the worst in the business”, threatened to revoke ABC’s broadcast license, and even recycled his recent insult of a female reporter as “piggy” . The Independent emphasized that Trump “began yelling” at Bruce and singled her out as “a terrible person and a terrible reporter” in front of the Saudi prince . To liberal eyes, this Oval Office moment epitomized Trump’s anti-press animus and willingness to “justify murder” to avoid upsetting an authoritarian ally .

What Centrist Media Emphasized

Mainstream news outlets delivered relatively dry accounts of the incident, spotlighting the facts without loaded language. The Associated Press described the scene of Trump defending the crown prince and denouncing Bruce as a “terrible reporter”, noting Trump’s “lot of people didn’t like” Khashoggi remark alongside MBS’s acknowledgment that the death was a “huge mistake” . AP and others like ABC News reported Trump’s exact quote , “things happen, but [MBS] knew nothing about it” and that he told Bruce, “You don’t have to embarrass our guest” by raising the killing . These outlets also included Saudi and U.S. context: that Khashoggi’s murder in Istanbul caused global outrage, and that U.S. intelligence in 2021 assessed “Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince…approved an operation…to capture or kill” Khashoggi .

Centrist coverage tended to give a play-by-play. For example, Reuters recounted that MBS received a “lavish red carpet welcome” for his first U.S. visit since 2018, and “in a stunning response to a journalist’s question”, Trump said the prince “did nothing wrong” . They noted Trump’s praise for MBS’s “incredible” human rights record (delivered without specifics) and his eagerness to highlight $1 trillion in new Saudi investments . But they also invariably mention that Trump’s stance contradicted U.S. intelligence findings about Khashoggi . In short, centrist outlets focused on the key statements and factual contradictions, letting readers draw conclusions.

Notably, many mainstream reports gave equal weight to the transactional outcomes of the visit. USA Today, for instance, headlined that Trump “dismisses Jamal Khashoggi’s murder during [the] Saudi crown prince visit” emphasizing Trump’s claim that MBS “knew nothing about” the killing but also outlined plans for arms sales, Saudi investment pledges, and talks on issues like Israel and Gaza. The focus was balanced between Trump’s controversial quote and the broader diplomatic agenda, reflecting a neutral tone.

Bias index by outlet for this story: 0 is straight-wire style, 100 is max spin. Scores blend loaded language, opinion markers, and how much hard evidence each piece actually cites.

What Right-Leaning Media Emphasized

Conservative outlets framed the episode as a vindication of Trump’s stance and a smackdown of a hostile press. Fox News led with Trump’s defense of MBS and his blasting of “fake news” ABC, portraying Bruce as the antagonist who “grilled” Trump and MBS with pointed questions . Fox’s report highlighted Trump’s “full-throated” praise of the prince , “he’s done a phenomenal job” and his insinuation that Khashoggi was disliked and not worth “embarrassing” an honored guest over . By quoting Trump’s “whether you liked him or not, things happen” line without overt criticism, Fox reinforced the notion that pressing MBS on a past murder was “a horrible, insubordinate…question” in Trump’s view.

Other right-leaning outlets were even more overt in downplaying the Khashoggi issue. Breitbart News ran the headline “‘Things Happen’”, casting Trump’s answer as an almost casual dismissal of the “slain columnist’s” fate . Breitbart’s story stressed that “rogue operatives” were blamed and that “the crown prince was cleared of involvement” after Saudi trials . It then pivoted to laud Trump’s reset of relations with MBS, contrasting it with former President Joe Biden’s earlier “pariah” stance that “soon changed…as the U.S. economy cratered” under Biden . In this telling, Trump’s cordial ties with MBS which was sealed with business deals and a red-carpet welcome mark a triumphant return to realpolitik, with media outrage dismissed as partisan noise.

The New York Post similarly focused on Trump’s quote that MBS “knew nothing” about the killing, adding Trump’s shrug that “Things happen” in the region . The Post framed the Oval Office exchange as Trump asserting MBS’s innocence while Democrats and the press harp on old news. And on Newsmax, an article (sourced from AP) tellingly relegated Khashoggi to “afterthought” status: it noted that “the dark clouds” of the murder had “been cleared away” as Trump and MBS cemented plans for $1 trillion in investments and a renewed partnership . The headline lauded “Saudi Crown Prince Promises $1T in US Investments”, signaling the priority placed on deals over justice.

Where Coverage Overlaps

Despite diverging tones, most outlets from left, center, and right reported the same core facts: that Trump publicly defended Mohammed bin Salman, refused to fault him for Khashoggi’s death, and lashed out at Mary Bruce for raising the issue. All sides quoted Trump’s “things happen” remark and his insistence that Americans should just “leave it at that” . Likewise, it was widely noted that U.S. intelligence assessments conflict with Trump’s absolution of MBS . Even many conservative pieces acknowledged, if briefly, that Khashoggi was a Washington Post journalist killed by Saudi agents and that the prince’s role was widely suspected.

Another common thread was describing the theatrics of the visit. Across the spectrum, outlets mentioned the ceremonial welcome, including the honor guard and fighter jet flyover and Trump’s celebratory announcement of Saudi business deals . MBS’s own comments (expressing “pain” over Khashoggi and 9/11 but urging focus on the future) were also reported in most accounts . In this sense, the raw material of the story did not change; what differed was the framing and context each side chose to emphasize.

Domestic vs. Foreign Coverage

Domestic U.S. media, whether liberal or conservative, filtered the incident through America’s political battles be it Trump vs. the press, or Trump vs. Biden-era diplomacy. Foreign outlets often took a step back. For example, the South China Morning Post (Hong Kong) and Japan Times simply noted that “Trump warmly welcomed” MBS and “insists” the prince knew nothing of Khashoggi’s murder , treating Trump’s stance as one element in a larger geopolitical puzzle. The BBC and France24 (in broadcast segments) similarly reported the facts without the partisanship, focusing on what the meeting means for U.S.-Saudi relations and Middle East policy.

Notably, UK-based outlets like The Guardian and Independent showed no restraint in condemning Trump’s position which largely mirrored the tone of their American liberal counterparts. In contrast, outlets in the Middle East tended to soft-pedal the story. Saudi-owned or allied media virtually ignored the Khashoggi question; instead, they highlighted the pomp, investment deals, and talk of strategic partnerships (as seen in Al Arabiya and Arab News coverage, which mentioned Khashoggi only in passing, if at all). This split underscores how foreign coverage diverged based on proximity and interest: in Europe and Asia, the focus was on diplomacy; in the Middle East (especially Gulf states), on burnishing MBS’s image; and in the U.S., on the domestic optics and moral debate.

What’s Missing or Underplayed in Coverage

• Voices of Khashoggi’s Family and Dissidents: Few reports included reactions from Khashoggi’s widow or human rights activists. Khashoggi’s fiancée Hatice Cengiz and groups like DAWN (founded by Khashoggi) have publicly decried Trump’s comments as “beyond sickening”, but their perspective received scant attention in initial coverage .

• 9/11 Families’ Perspective: While Mary Bruce explicitly raised 9/11 families’ anger at MBS’s visit , most stories did not follow up on that angle. The concern of victims’ families who note 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis was mentioned in passing, then dropped.

• Trump’s Business Conflicts: Bruce’s first question was about Trump’s own family business deals in Saudi Arabia . This issue of Trump’s potential conflicts of interest (e.g. the planned Trump Tower Jeddah) was largely overshadowed. Only ABC News and a few others reported Trump’s denial of any “family business” ties influencing him .

• Saudi Voices: Absent were viewpoints from within Saudi Arabia’s civil society or opposition. No outlet (unsurprisingly) featured Saudi dissidents or independent analysts critiquing MBS; the narrative was driven by Trump’s and U.S. perspectives.

• Epstein Files Context: The confrontation pivoted to Bruce asking why Trump hasn’t just released the Jeffrey Epstein files himself . Right-leaning coverage zeroed in on Trump calling the Epstein inquiry a “Democrat hoax” , but few explained the substance: that Congress is forcing the files’ release and Trump had resisted until now. This nuance, tangential but telling, got short shrift.

This media divide fits a familiar pattern of the Trump era: the same incident yields two radically different stories. For liberal outlets, Trump once again appears to attack a Post journalist (Khashoggi) and an American reporter while cozying up to an authoritarian and echoing his past defenses of Russia’s Vladimir Putin, North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, and others. The press sees a “chilling” message that Trump will justify almost anything (“things happen”) if it flatters his “friend” in Riyadh . It reinforces the narrative of Trump vs. the free press and human rights.

Conservative media’s treatment also follows their playbook. Trump’s base has long been told that the “fake news” media is the real villain here exemplified by Mary Bruce and that Trump’s blunt transactional approach (oil deals over lectures) makes America stronger. The emphasis on investments, jobs, and alliance-building while labeling inconvenient topics as “hoaxes” or “old news” which is a continuation of how right-wing outlets often prioritized economic or security arguments over moral ones during Trump’s first term.

Even Trump’s threat to yank ABC’s license is not new; it reprises his 2017 and 2018 musings about TV networks he dislikes. The media’s polarization in covering that threat is also predictable: one side hears an attack on the First Amendment, the other hears a triumphant takedown of liberal corporate media. In sum, each side’s framing of this Oval Office moment slots neatly into narratives they’ve been advancing for years.

What to Watch Next

• Backlash from Congress or Regulators: Will Trump’s remarks spur any action on Capitol Hill? Bipartisan outrage over Khashoggi’s killing once led to a Senate rebuke of Saudi Arabia. If Trump’s comments draw criticism from within his own party (as even some Republicans had condemned MBS in 2018), it could test how far the GOP will back Trump’s rapprochement. Also, keep an eye on FCC Chairman Brendan Carr whom Trump pointedly name-dropped for any response to the broadcast license threats .

• Impact on Trump’s 2024 Campaign: This incident may become a talking point. Trump’s GOP primary rivals or President Biden could seize on the “things happen” quote to paint him as soft on dictators or insensitive to press freedom. Conversely, Trump might tout the Saudi investments and prisoner releases (like dual citizens freed during MBS’s trip) as wins, doubling down on his “America First” but autocrat-friendly doctrine.

• Further Press Showdowns: Given Trump’s history, more confrontations with reporters are virtually guaranteed. Journalists may feel emboldened to ask even sharper questions on human rights, and Trump’s reactions will be news in themselves. Media organizations will likely rally around Bruce and others (as Bloomberg News did after Trump’s “piggy” insult ). Whether the White House under Trump imposes new restrictions on reporters (as it did in 2018 by pulling CNN’s Jim Acosta’s press pass) is worth monitoring if these clashes escalate.

Methods & Caveats

To analyze these narratives, we surveyed 12 major outlets , 4 each labeled Liberal, Center, and Right including U.S. and international publications. We compared one representative article per outlet, all published within a day of the Oval Office incident. We preserved each article’s key quotes and facts and noted the tone, emphasis, and omissions in each. All source material is cited for transparency, using each outlet’s own words .

Bias assessments (ideology scores and a “bias index”) were estimated based on charged language, explicit opinion, and evidence provided in each article. These are not precise measurements but indicators to illustrate relative differences. For example, an AP news report scored very low on our bias index, while a fiery Washington Post editorial scored much higher, reflecting its emotive, critical language . The ideology scores (-3 to +3) rely on public bias ratings of these outlets and the article’s framing – there is some subjectivity in this scaling, and not all observers may agree on each outlet’s label (e.g. USA Today was categorized as centrist here despite one aggregator tagging it “Liberal”).

Finally, it’s important to note that headlines sometimes exaggerate for impact. We saw instances of that (on both sides), so we read beyond headlines to context. Our analysis focused on news coverage, not editorial opinion pieces, except where the line blurred (as with the Post’s editorial and Breitbart’s news-opinion hybrid reporting). Different readers may interpret an article’s slant differently; our categorizations aimed to reflect general perceptions and the outlets’ own tendencies. In the end, this case study vividly demonstrates how media bias isn’t about what facts are reported since most outlets reported the same Trump quotes but how they are contextualized. “Things happen,” Trump said about a murder, and the media response happened in equally dramatic fashion.

“Things happen,” Let that sink in.

The only reason you’re reading a deeper cut like this is because a small group of you decided work like this shouldn’t be background noise. Right now it’s about 75 paid readers carrying this whole operation on their backs, and if we can push that to 100 paid before year’s end, Substack tags XVOA as a “bestseller” and shoves this kind of media autopsy in front of people who will never go looking for a retired cop’s newsletter on their own. If this piece helped you see the coverage differently, I’m asking you, not “people like you,” no, you to move from free to paid today and help me keep cutting through the spin. Upgrade here:

---

Sources:

• Associated Press (via Nashua Telegraph), Nov. 19, 2025: “Trump attacks ABC reporter after question about killing of Saudi journalist Khashoggi.”

• ABC News, Nov. 18, 2025: “Trump defends Saudi crown prince over Khashoggi murder: ‘Things happen’.”

• CNN Politics, Nov. 18, 2025: “Trump claims slain journalist Khashoggi was ‘extremely controversial,’ defends Saudi crown prince.”

• The Washington Post (Editorial), Nov. 18, 2025: “‘Things happen’ – Setting the record straight about our murdered colleague.”

• The Guardian, Nov. 18, 2025: “Trump shrugs off Khashoggi murder during Saudi prince’s White House visit.”

• The Independent, Nov. 18, 2025: “Trump rips reporter who asks Saudi prince about 9/11 role and Khashoggi murder: ‘Lot of people didn’t like that gentleman’.”

• Reuters World News (transcript), Nov. 19, 2025: “Trump defends MBS… in White House meeting” (podcast transcript)

• USA Today, Nov. 18, 2025: “Trump dismisses Jamal Khashoggi murder during Saudi crown prince visit.”

• Fox News, Nov. 18, 2025: “Trump defends Saudi crown prince, rips ‘fake news’ ABC reporter for question on Jamal Khashoggi’s murder.”

• Breitbart News, Nov. 18, 2025: “Trump…: ‘Things Happen’”

• New York Post, Nov. 18, 2025: “Trump… ‘knew nothing’ about killing…: ‘Things happen’.”

• Newsmax (AP story), Nov. 18, 2025: “Saudi Crown Prince Promises $1T in US Investments.”

---

1. https://apnews.com/article/6cb0300433689c914250e475c4ae8483

2. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/saudi-crown-prince-marks-return-us-after-7/story?id=127594469

3. https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/tbwjs/date/2025-11-18/segment/01

4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/11/18/jamal-khashoggi-trump-mohammed-bin-salman-saudi-arabia/

5. https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/nov/18/donald-trump-mbs-saudi-arabia-meeting-f35-jets-latest

6. https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-saudi-arabia-press-conference-khashoggi-b2867670.html

7. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-welcome-saudi-crown-prince-with-offer-fighter-jets-business-deals-2025-11-18/

8. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/things-happen-trump-denies-saudi-185847070.html

9. https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-defends-saudi-crown-prince-rips-fake-news-abc-reporter-question-jamal-khashoggis-murder

10. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/11/18/trump-asked-about-slain-columnist-jamal-khashoggi-in-conference-with-saudi-crown-prince-things-happen/

11. https://nypost.com/2025/11/18/us-news/trump-schools-abc-reporter-mary-bruce-threatens-to-pull-broadcast-license/

12. https://www.newsmax.com/politics/trump-saudi-arabia-prince-mohammed-bin-salman/2025/11/18/id/1235072/

13. https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3333319/trump-insists-saudi-crown-prince-knew-nothing-about-khashoggi-killing