Our media softens the Morris police matter

Lego police officer

Some background first: The names "Trout" and "Bugbaum" probably don't register with you. These were made-up names for reporters with a fictional and satirical newspaper. The recently-deceased P.J. O'Rourke had a lot to do with it. This faux newspaper has been described as the "Rosetta Stone of newspaper satires." 

It came out at the height of the monopoly distribution model of the metro newspaper. We assumed papers to have a central role in our lives. Adding to that feeling was that we were flush from Watergate. 

Seems strange, really, but newspaper writers emerged as the heroes of Watergate. Strange I suggest, because you'd think that lawyers had their sleeves rolled up for all of that. But no it was newspaper writers, and lest there be any doubt on that, Hollywood rolled its sleeves up. Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman no less. 

Hollywood can pile on with stereotypes and popular notions, n'est-ce pas? Newspaper writers surely were at the forefront. Pat Buchanan described the Washington Post pair as "stenographers." Buchanan's comment came after we learned Mark Felt's role. Do we have to remind of Felt's nickname in the whole Byzantine matter? "Deep Throat," of course. You probably remember the notorious porn movie that was the basis for the name. Ah, the days when porn was scarce and stigmatized. 

Buchanan's "stenographer" assertion was to diminish the supposedly intrepid reporters. The reporters worked hard and had adrenaline pumping, to be sure. But let's tear down the myth a little: the reporters were conduits for powerful people who are human like the rest of us, and like to settle scores. Scheme to get certain facts out in public, and presto: your agenda can be served. 

Felt was an FBI big shot. I have published a review of the movie about him. What was the movie called? Can't remember now. 

"The press was riding high" with the aftermath of all the Watergate stuff, so P.J. O'Rourke sensed a parody opportunity, as O'Rourke would always do. His newspaper satire was called "Dacron Republican-Democrat." Every Page 1 had a photo of a smashed-up vehicle "above the fold." Inside was a column by a pair of reporters who were presented much like Woodward and Bernstein. So their names were "Trout" and "Bugbaum." There was a little photo of the two clicking cocktail glasses in a toast to themselves! They smiled triumphantly. 

But what did they do? The re-occurring gag went like this: the start of the column laid out sordid rumors of corruption in some high place, pretty detailed actually. So what did the reporters do? They went to the alleged wrongdoers and then got cowed every time. The two would "look into the matter" and then come away with the total company line of how everything was just fine. 

I find it funny because it truly is hard to confront people who appear to be associated with dirty linen. They can deflect, deny and intimidate in so many ways. They have the advantage of inside knowledge. They can come at you with info that seems too complicated, precisely what Bill Clinton's strategy was with "Whitewater." A meek reporter who wishes to keep his job might want to stay out of the whole mess. 

"Trout and Bugbaum" seemed in denial about their own weakness, I guess. So they paraded along just buying the party line of various folks. Just having the column in the newspaper made them celebrities. Sometimes that's kind of a rush. Would I know? Hell yes. 

Woodward and Bernstein did not go to Richard Nixon or his prime henchmen. And let's make clear, these were not sympathetic people. Don't let time draw a misty curtain. 

So, Woodward and Bernstein didn't have so much of an uphill battle with sources, because they found this FBI person - what could suggest more power? - who had a motive as old as the hills: he had been passed over for promotion! As they say, "the rest is history." 

On the Morris police

Why am I reviewing all this today? I'm thinking of our quite "micro" situation here in Morris MN. I'm looking at our newspaper and its disingenuous nature with matters like these. My goodness, the Anfinsons pound away, practically ad nauseam, on how we need newspapers to keep an eye on government. 

But it's like "Trout and Bugbaum": beneath the veneer of their righteous proclamations, they gloss over anything that might bring unease to the power structure. A huge example just this week: the update on the police department matter. As in, no more Morris police department. Would seem to qualify as rather a bombshell item: no more city police. 

(wikiwand image)

Well, the big boys at the Star Tribune put this news on Page 1. As for the little boys and girls here in Morris, we run into, well, obfuscation. 

We get a big front page article this week. This news development reeks of a person or persons having dropped the ball at some point. Forget the embarrassment, let's peel through the veneer to see what culpable parties might be identified. We can give them the opportunity to defend themselves in quotes. Let the finger-pointing begin. 

But it's theoretical here.

If no one dropped the ball at any level, why is the matter on front page of the Gotham newspaper? Think of all the police issues in Minneapolis. And now the Morris police issue is "above the fold?" 

Surely the readers around Stevens County would appreciate knowing "the story behind the story." My sources had told me the problem was the city manager keeping the talks under wraps for too long, the talks about dissolving the city police and merging with the sheriff. Then the matter got "sprung" on others in a disconcerting way, it was reported to me. 

Could more up-front communication have caused the plans to be intercepted for re-consideration? I mean, a chance to learn about the unraveling of the city police to where it was vestigial? Could things have been patched up? Just seems very strange: why is it untenable for Morris to have a police department while at the same time the county can sweep in and do the work? I could ask any number of questions. 

I am left just trying to ferret out the background by talking to people "on the street." But hey, we have a newspaper: that's the whole idea, I mean for the newspaper to follow up on the grand (pretentious) talk coming from Reed Anfinson on the editorial page. Let's see it in practice? 

What the hell to we get? We get "Trout and Bugbaum," in effect. Hear no evil, see no evil. 

The first sentence of this week's coverage: "There are many forms of government in our cities." Oh sheesh, is this the actual "Dacron Republican-Democrat?" The civics lesson continues like weak tea. 

The article claims that it was the city manager, with the council, that got "blind-sided." Something was awry, then? But heaven forbid the newspaper getting into that. Stuff just "happens," I guess. 

Oh no it doesn't. But we are left to speculate. How was the city manager "blind-sided?" Well, the article says it was by "what was going on." 

OK, "it is what it is." 

So the police department eroded down to two officers. And at that point, what action? Well, to "look into it more deeply." Or as Edwin Newman once wrote in a fun-poking way re. evasive public officials, "evaluate and make a judgment in terms of a response." 

We'd just like to know "what was going on." We get no elucidation, just this follow-up by the paper: "No one is able to put a finger on one specific reason for the loss of employees. However, the dissolution of the Morris Police Department was the result." 

So the scenario was this: "stuff happens." And to learn this we have to pay for a newspaper? Stuff does not just happen. 

 

Disagreement

Council member Kevin Wohlers voted against dissolution. He recited a statement at the July 26 council meeting in which he suggested there was a "communication problem within the organization," to quote the newspaper. What organization was he talking about? Law enforcement? City government as a whole? 

(wikimedia commons)

Wohlers stressed that he wanted his suggestion to be "positive." We bend over backwards in small towns to be positive, don't we? 

Talking about "communications" strikes me as a way of whitewashing all of this. We could all benefit from better communications, all the time. Such a generalization. Perfect for small town consumption. When all else fails, just talk about needing better communication. 

But the bottom line of what happened is that Morris ended up on the Star Tribune's front page, above the fold, with the shocking story of eliminating the police department. Ah, "defund the police." It could be interpreted that way, albeit wrongly (I guess). 

I think everyone would end up happier if law enforcement would go back to treating seat belt as a secondary offense. 

I reached the end of the Morris newspaper's coverage with the realization that I'd still have to "work the streets" to try to get "the real story." And that contradicts the grandiose (sanctimonious) statements by Reed Anfinson on the editorial page. 

Oh, the current front page headline: "Morris City Council works to create better communications." 

Because everything is always fine here in Lake Wobegon. Where all the kids are above average.

- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com