Knowing: Still Only Half the Battle

“Write what you know” is one of those adages doled out frequently to struggling novelists, even though many great authors think it’s terrible advice (Toni Morrison: “You don’t know anything”; Ken Kesey: “What you know is dull”).

Now, I don’t write fiction, so I can’t really say. But I have seen “write what you know” work for journalists—that is, when they weave discrete, known facts into a coherent, compelling whole.

Take this recent example from the New York Times, a Charlie Savage piece headlined “New Reports on Russian Interference Don’t Show What Trump Says They Do.” Savage delved into allegations from President Trump and DNI Tulsi Gabbard that President Obama had conspired with his deputies to gin up false conspiracies around Russian interference with the 2016 election. Savage, who has been covering national security most of his career, noted that while a few bits of fresh information came out of Trump’s crusade, most of the claims were “overheated” and “wildly overstated.” Then he dissected and eviscerated Trump’s allegations, bit by bit. Did Savage’s piece break a lot of new ground? Not really. Readers who have been following every development in the Russia investigation since 2016 wouldn’t learn much new. But that’s the point: Most people don’t follow most stories very closely. So they can learn a lot when an experienced beat reporter helps them sort out what’s important and what’s chaff.