As search for Nancy Guthrie continues, Pima County Sheriff Nanos struggles to control narrative

The disappearance of Nancy Guthrie has dominated headlines over the last several weeks. And that means Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos has been contending with the harsh glare of the national spotlight. Some of Nanos’ investigative decisions have drawn criticism — as have his public appearances, both official and otherwise.

In one of his first press conferences, Nanos said, “I’m not used to everyone hanging onto my every word and then holding me accountable for what I say.” The comment raised eyebrows. Many, including Arizona Daily Star columnist Tim Steller, winced at the idea that an elected official — and lead investigator on a high-profile case — would say such a thing. But, as Steller told The Show, moments like that are par for the course when it comes to covering Sheriff Nanos.

Full conversation

TIM STELLER: I think those of us who know him kind of know not to take everything word for word as truth. We maybe know how to interpret him a little bit more than people who haven't spoken to him before.

SAM DINGMAN: Right.

STELLER: But overall, you know, I think in those first two press conferences he held in the first week, I think a lot of people were left wondering, like, who is this guy around the country, of course, outside of Pima County, because he came off eager to answer questions, but also sometimes, I don't know, it felt a little unprofessional at times.

DINGMAN: I'm wondering how you balance that against the way that he seems to be handling the case, because it seems like one of the other issues that you're sort of alluding to in the answer you just gave is the way that he messages about this, even if nothing technically incorrect has happened, also kind of doesn't inspire confidence.

STELLER: Yeah, I mean, he speaks off the cuff. And one thing I'll give him credit for is, like, when he's asked a question, he hears the question and he answers it. I hate to even suggest this as a journalist, but he probably would be better served to be more taciturn in that respect. But that's not his style, you know? He's never been that way.

DINGMAN: Yeah. What is your sense, Tim, of how these controversies related to Nanos' performance around the Guthrie case are playing locally? Because obviously, you've written your column. There was also a piece on the news recently about Nanos showing up at a basketball game, and some people thought he should have been working on the case instead of being at the basketball game.

STELLER: You know, of course, opinion is divided. I do think that there's widespread questioning. And of course, the longer it takes to resolve the case, the more the questioning grows. What we don't know is whether anything he's done has affected the outcome of the case.

For example, they kept the house sealed that is, you know, in the hands of the Sheriff's Department for the first couple of days. I'm talking here about the home of Nancy Guthrie. And then after that, they released the home to the family. Well after that happened, some journalists walked up to the door and some other people basically made themselves present on the scene. And then the Sheriff's Department sealed the house again two days later. So that could have screwed up any evidence that they might have found on the scene thereafter.

DINGMAN: Right.

STELLER: That's the sort of thing that people locally are just, you know, maybe wincing at a little bit. But we don't know how this is all going to turn out. And we certainly don't know everything that's going on behind the scenes. They might be doing as well as they could. It's just that when you see little things like this, it makes you think they aren't.

DINGMAN: Yeah. Well, you were mentioning, Tim, you know, that the way Nanos has been speaking in things like press conferences. You know, to folks who are just becoming familiar with him, it might be surprising to you who's been covering him for a while. It's not as surprising.

What about something like that issue with the crime scene? Did that seem in character with Nanos as sheriff in so far as you've been observing him, or did it feel like that was out of character?

STELLER: Well, we really don't usually pay this close attention to an investigation. So, I mean, I really wouldn't know if they've sealed the scene and then unsealed it and then resealed it before, because rarely do we pay that close attention to any investigation they're carrying out.

DINGMAN: Yeah.

STELLER: You know, this is one of those situations where every single move is being analyzed and speculated about by people around the country. And so, while it does undermine perhaps local confidence in him, it's possible we're just seeing something, seeing the way things work normally play out in a much more public fashion.

DINGMAN: Yeah. Well, this gets to something else that you write about in your piece, which is this idea of who is controlling the narrative in this case, Nanos or the FBI or TMZ or people following the case from afar in sort of new media ways, podcasters, vloggers, streamers.

There was this one incident that you write about where a podcaster, I think it was, identified Nancy Guthrie's son-in-law as a suspect. He was not, in fact, considered a suspect by Nanos' office, but the perception that he was got out of hand very quickly, right?

STELLER: Right. I mean, so what we're seeing here is this new information environment showing how powerful it is. You know, a streamer from some other part of the country who shows up here may have ten times the audience of all the news outlets in Tucson put together. And so his careless speculation about what's going on may get a lot more attention nationwide or worldwide than whatever more responsible journalistic outlets are saying.

And to a large degree, more than any other local story I've seen, this is who's controlling the narrative. It's it's the streamers, the YouTubers, the posters, you know, people just doing their armchair detective work. And as a result, the information is a free for all.

DINGMAN: Right. Right. Well, and of course, the longer the case goes unsolved by Nanos and the FBI, the more room there is for folks in that world to continue kind of breadcrumbing things into increased lack of clarity.

STELLER: Yep, but also increased hits. I mean, we're talking about people who are making money on the number of viewers they have on YouTube or whatever. So accuracy may not be what is paying off for people. It's just entertainment value.

DINGMAN: Yeah. It does make me want to ask you, though, Tim, I mean, it seems like one of the things we're kind of dancing around here is this idea that one of the responsibilities of being sheriff in a situation like this where Pima County finds itself in the spotlight is, in addition to being a good law enforcement officer, a good investigator, there's increasingly, in this media environment, the necessity of being a good steward of the narrative, a good storyteller.

STELLER: Yeah, I mean, there are people who are more skilled at that and people who are less skilled at that. Nanos is plenty skilled at talking and likes to talk, and I don't I think that's fine, but he's not skilled at crafting a narrative and sticking to it and also presenting like reassuring presence on the national stage.

So, you know, that's just that's who he is. It's and, you know, we don't know what's going on in the background, but it would be nice if the person in charge were a better steward, as you say, of the narrative.