Looking Past the Noise to the Truth

In my work, I am routinely handed stories before I am handed facts.

Reports are written. Narratives are formed. Headlines circulate. Opinions harden. People arrive with assumptions about what happened, who someone is, and what the outcome should be.

If I relied on those alone, I would miss the truth more often than not.

One of the most important disciplines I’ve learned — both professionally and personally — is how to look past the noise. Past the reports. Past the media coverage. Past the gossip. Past someone’s history, reputation, or prior mistakes. And get down to two things that actually matter:

Who is the person in front of me, and what truly occurred.

That distinction is not academic. It has real consequences.

Written reports are necessary, but they are not neutral. Media coverage can inform, but it can also simplify. Public narratives often leave out context, nuance, and critical details that don’t fit neatly into a headline or a talking point. And gossip — especially in small communities — can harden into “truth” long before anyone stops to verify it.

My job requires me to slow all of that down.

I read reports carefully, but I don’t stop there. I review evidence. I examine timelines. I compare statements. I look for what is missing as much as what is included. I ask why something was framed a certain way. I question assumptions that others take for granted.

Most importantly, I talk to people.

Not to confirm a preconceived conclusion — but to understand who they are, how they experienced what happened, and what the available facts actually support. People are often more than the story others tell about them.

That doesn’t mean excusing behavior. It means understanding it accurately.

There is a significant difference between accountability and assumption. Between responsibility and reputation. Between evidence and narrative. Failing to recognize those differences is how systems drift away from fairness and toward convenience.

The same principle applies beyond my professional work.

In leadership — especially at the local level — it is easy to govern by headline, pressure, or rumor. It is easy to accept a version of events because it is already circulating or because challenging it takes time and effort. But decisions made that way are rarely good ones.

Communities are not served by leaders who react fastest. They are served by leaders who investigate thoroughly.

Looking past the noise requires patience. It requires humility. It requires being willing to say, “I don’t know yet,” and doing the work necessary to find out. It also requires the discipline to resist outside pressure when the facts don’t support the loudest voices in the room.

That approach has shaped how I do my work, and it shapes how I believe leadership should function.

I don’t believe in judging people by reputation alone. I don’t believe in governing by rumor. And I don’t believe that the first story told is always the correct one.

Truth is rarely found at the surface level. It is found by slowing down, asking better questions, and being willing to look past what is convenient to what is accurate.

That is how I approach my work.

And it is how I believe decisions that affect real people should always be made.