My writing philosophy quite in line w/ Michael Wolff

Michael Wolff (Wikimedia Commons)

Never in my lengthy tenure in the local commercial press did I ever feel like a true fraternity member with other pros in the field. Some of my detractors will snicker at that sentence. They will say the sentence ridiculously states the obvious.
My journalistic brethren of the standard stripe fail to see their own imperfections. They fail to see that they live in a professional ecosystem where everyone scratches everyone else's back. The powers-that-be want the journalist/writers to occupy a "middle ground" with how they report the world around them. Objectivity becomes a mid point between two opposing camps on any subject. It becomes detached from a genuine understanding of the truth.
And the "proper" approach is one where the writers and power brokers can maintain a working relationship. Without that relationship, writers would fear they'd fall off their perch. They have a "job" and need an element of predictability and certainty, as one seeks in any job. But truth-telling or (more accurately) truth seeking should not hinge on such an environment. Truth is simply the truth. A true journalist should gravitate to that regardless of the expedient factors.
Thus I hope you share my fascination with the truth. I'll grant that the pure, unadulterated truth can be elusive. So, shall we sometimes write what we feel is close to the truth, an approximation of the truth or even a well-founded hunch simply based on trusting good sources? My days in the local print media made me privy to endless "background" about things. This access to news, to gossip and to the various gradations in between abruptly ended in 2006. But not completely. My instincts remain because I was essentially born with them.
 
Whose truth? Author explains
The standard corporate journalists, the breed with whom I couldn't gain affinity, typically gravitate to a story line that Michael Wolff would call a "negotiated truth." In other words, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. It doesn't mean we'll always make you happy with what we write, but it means you'll be in the game. Controversies will be shaded in a way to hint there is shared blame, otherwise we might be painted as "biased." Ah, the "b" word.
"Informed sources" or the proverbial "sources close to (whatever)" tell a story that can leave me, well, maybe 90 percent certain of the truth. And if what I end up writing isn't 100 percent true, it's not as if it's zero percent true. If you have any familiarity with my online writing - I'd say "blog" but some people still see the term in a pejorative light - you know I share stuff both from the present and (oh my) the past that I could never write in the Morris newspaper. Quite ironic, because the insights I am willing to lay out would be most revealing and helpful. In theory it would "sell newspapers." And wouldn't that be the goal?
Don't be naive because you ought to know that advertising is the lifeblood of the commercial media. And in that environment, the "negotiated truth" as Wolff would call it is paramount. Don't let slip some sliver of absolute truth that would come across as sensational and scandalous because it might penetrate someone's force shield. Everyone must be allowed to maintain their force shield. Because, we're looking at a big ecosystem of shared survival.
Wolff knows this and shares about it unashamedly on the macro level. While yours truly most surely understands it micro. It's nice to feel brethren with Mr. Wolff, who, if his defects are so bad as what the self-reverential folks assert, why does he sell a ton of books? He's a book author and not a writer in the standard commercial media, the latter with those ecosystem restrictions.
When the monopoly distribution system took over for newspapers, we saw the birth of the "objective" creed which was, more than anything, a survival strategy for the commercial press. So, you find an artificial middle ground when reporting on anything that might be contentious. You might not please everyone, granted, but you can thump your chest and argue that "both sides" are acknowledged. You acquiesce to powerful people who want to issue a public denial of something. How can a lot of those people sleep at night?
All that yours truly has ever wanted to do is to write the truth, or at least perceive the truth in my own mind, because what else is there? For the preponderance of commercial press writers, they weigh their paycheck, their livelihood. And as an extension of that, their sense of a shared fraternity where I guess they feel a strength in numbers. All of which, I guess I don't give a flying f--k about. And neither does Michael Wolff.
 
Interpreting local subject
Did any local writer other than me even ask the fundamental question of what was likely behind the notorious sexual assault charges that created a sensation here? Am I the only writer who even posed the question, publicly in writing albeit online-only, about whether the thing was a "setup?" A setup by the accuser? No, I cannot absolutely affirm that "setup" was the case. And if it was, how could I know it for certain? And yet the question seemed relevant and central.
Thus a fair number of arguably quite intelligent local people bandied about on this. Even I was aware as a now-quite-detached person, compared to when I was Mr. Local Knowledge at the Morris Sun Tribune.
Did anyone besides me in the local media seek out and publish a photo of the prosecutor?
Did anyone else share incisive and necessary questions such as whether it would have been prima facie logical for the school board to dismiss the accused party, not because of presumed guilt but just on the known facts about behavior leading up to the incident in question? What a wild night led up to all that - could you imagine me, as someone not even expected to set an example for young people, behaving like that? Or, even close to behaving like that? I'm under the impression this individual continues to work in education. I wish him no ill will because our ethos today is for "second chances."
People inclined like author Wolff and yours truly must be cynical. Jim Morrison described me as a contrarian. The editor at the paper back in 1979 - Jimmy Carter was president - warned me by saying "people will lie to you." Yes, Pollyanna I am not. And I fail to see why so many might think I deserve to be stigmatized. Maybe it's because they never want to see the underbelly of bad things, to realize that "people will lie to you." But I'm a believer in the truth because the truth will set us free.
I should stress that there is no joy to be felt as someone not accepted among the commercial media fraternity, those "editors and reporters" who exist because of ad sales - a subtle but symbiotic relationship. I would prefer being accepted over not being accepted. But after 13 years of being out of the commercial fold, maybe I dismiss it as a non-issue. I try to share with readers my interpretation of things that I think is as close to the truth as possible. I won't be fooled by "plausible deniability" or word parsing.

Figures lie, liars figure
When a cable TV news host "denies" that she showed questions in advance to Brett Kavanaugh, I actually believe her. The germane question is whether the show's producer engaged in the nefarious communication, the kind of endeavor I would fully expect by Fox News. All those people feather their own nests.
Wolff thinks it's essential that we see what's before our eyes, so obviously, with the phenomenon of the Trump presidency. We should react with fear and put aside the normal sterilized instincts. But instead, the journalistic troopers slavishly continue getting "both sides of the story," always gravitating to the imagined middle ground where they can proclaim they are impartial. No one is really impartial, and the sooner we internalize this, the better off we'll be. If we can just wake up in time, which sadly I am not betting on.

Wolff says it's a given that he'll catch "flak" from other journalists over his new, fresh book, "Siege: Trump Under Fire." Like me, I don't think he relishes his outlier status, it's just that he's in his personal comfort zone as a journalist.
I have always felt comfortable writing the way I do, wouldn't have it any other way. Hell, I had a police scanner for part of my time at the paper. So, I was aware late one night when the cops were called to chase some card players at the Legion when they didn't leave fast enough at closing time - that group included a prominent local businessman.
 
Motivations, motivations, motivations
When I wrote what was really a pretty tame editorial suggesting that hockey deserved expansion in Morris, probably in the mid-1980s, a public school administrator pranced into my office and said "who are you after?" He felt I was deliberately trying to make life more difficult for school leaders who weren't on board with all the hockey enthusiasm. "We've been told to watch our backs," hockey advocate Ron Sharstrom said to me.
Speaking of ecosystem, hockey has climbed aboard in such a way with local sports, there's no cause for fuss.
Another hockey promoter told me that the school board at one point said "if you're going to build an arena, we want it to be a good one." Somewhat odd wording because, who would countenance anything to the contrary? In my rapier-like mind, a la Michael Wolff, I "translated" as such: "We're really rather skeptical of hockey because our school might not be able to absorb a whole additional sport, and besides we stand for academics and not athletics, but if you're going to succeed in getting an arena built (anyway), well, we want it to be a good one."
There was a mid-level administrator in the 1980s who was antagonistic toward hockey - no nuances. Personally, I felt somewhat betrayed when after just a short time, we lost our Morris High School team and had to accept an unlikely partnership with Benson. What the hell is the "Storm?" But it's better to have gone this route rather than tamp down hockey simply because the interests of other sports (translation: the coaches) might seem threatened.
Herb Brooks came here and said "how's it going to affect basketball?" He was right. He needled me in a way that did not obviously seem friendly, because I was a writer, he was familiar with the power of writers and he wasn't sure about me. But in the end I think it was all amicable.
The anti-hockey administrator or quasi-administrator had to mosey on down the road. So did the guy accused of sexual assault - all charges dropped of course - and this was after a lengthy paid leave of absence. Only in government, I guess. I theorized that the Morris school board probably had an attorney scared of his own shadow, advising "you can't terminate the guy 'cause he could end up suing you." Good God, the circumstances at the time the s--t hit the fan screamed for something to be done. Legal disposition wasn't entirely the crux of the matter, it was just a part.
Had I been in the corporate media, I would be walking on eggshells and gravitating to that "negotiated truth." Just find a nice comfortable spot somewhere in the middle, respect the defensive posturing and don't say s--t even if you have a mouthful.
 
The macro truth
Saying what we now know about Donald Trump should only take about five seconds. If Brett Kavanaugh actually did commit sexual assault, what are the odds he would ever say so? So why go through the whole standard journalistic exercise?
My journalist brethren with whom I am not kin would say "what about fact-checking?" Wolff says this: "I actually don't believe, if you know the answer, it is necessary to go through the motions of getting an answer that you are absolutely certain of." Amen and hallelujah. And if you're affronted by that attitude, here's how Mr. Wolff would elaborate further: "It's a distinction between journalists who are institutionally wedded and those who are not. I'm not." And Mr. Wolff, I am not, either.
Eat your heart out.
- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com