Reason Nominated for 17 Southern California Journalism Awards (opinion)
Reason has received 17 nominations for the 67th Southern California Journalism Awards, the Los Angeles Press Club announced Tuesday, including nine nods for the magazine, five for video, and three for podcasting.
Editor in Chief Katherine Mangu-Ward is nominated for best magazine columnist for "The Bankruptcy of Nostalgianomics" from the March 2024 issue of Reason; "SWAT Goes to College" from the July 2024 issue of Reason; and "Double-Hater Dead-Enders" from the November 2024 issue of Reason:
In election season, there's a certain dark freedom in policy nihilism. It allows candidates to campaign without accountability. If their policy proposals are flimsy and changeable, they reduce their own risk of being held to their promises. Knowing that the policy talk is meaningless allows voters to gloss over the difficult details of proposals, since the candidates are unlikely to pursue the policies they are discussing in a recognizable way once in office anyway. We're left with elections where the stakes feel apocalyptic, even as the substance hollows out.
But policy nihilism is only tenable for as long as the campaign lasts. Someone will win, and that person must govern—at which point the double-haters will almost certainly be proven right.
Reporter Eric Boehm is nominated for best long-form magazine feature on business/government for "How Inflation Breaks Our Brains," from the October 2024 issue of Reason, in which he surveys how history shows that rising prices make consumers—and voters—go insane:
Inflation, it turns out, is also a psychological phenomenon. It makes us angry. It makes us irrational. In any democratic system, that anger and irrationality can be quickly translated into poor policies—unless elected and unelected officials are prepared to withstand it, and to recognize that combating inflation often requires unpopular actions. Now is not the time to indulge the wisdom of the mob.
Reporter Billy Binion is nominated for best magazine commentary for "Trump Promises Police 'Immunity From Prosecution,'" from the August/September 2024 issue of Reason, in which he argues that pledging to inoculate law enforcement from accountability is both legally illiterate and unjust:
But one thing is clear: Trump would like to see law enforcement held to a lesser standard than the public they serve. The former president has arguably never been a tried-and-true conservative, but he does need to court them. It is difficult to make a conservative case for ensuring that those who enforce the law are also above it.
Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey is nominated for best science reporting in print and online for "Progress, Rediscovered," from the May 2024 issue of Reason, in which he profiles a burgeoning movement promoting scientific, technological, and economic solutions to humanity's problems:
Jason Crawford, founder of the Roots of Progress project, is one of the leaders of a new pro-progress movement that is coalescing in a collection of think tanks, websites, and other intellectual incubators. It celebrates humanity's achievements so far. It judges progress not in technocratic terms but with an eye on outcomes for individual human beings. And it imagines, again in Crawford's words, an "ambitious technological future that we want to live in and are excited to build."
Contributing Editor J.D. Tuccille is nominated for best medical/health reporting in print and online for "When Your Heart Becomes a Snitch," from the April 2024 issue of Reason, in which he explores how a lifesaving pacemaker can also be vulnerable to hacking and compromise privacy in surprising ways:
I have a cardiologist who already told me he thinks I exercise too much. Is he going to review the data and second-guess my habits? Is my snitching medical device going to inspire nagging sessions with doctors, perhaps followed by nastygrams from my insurance company or government agencies about lifestyle choices and resulting costs? Technological capabilities are racing ahead, but conversations about the implications lag well behind.
That's a thought to make my heart race.
Deputy Managing Editor Fiona Harrigan is nominated for best immigration reporting in print for "Left in the Graveyard of Empires," from the August/September 2024 issue of Reason, in which she reports on the thousands of people who helped the U.S. in Afghanistan—and who are still desperately looking for an escape from the war-torn country:
Things weren't supposed to go this way. In return for his service to the U.S., Baryalai was eligible for a sanctioned escape—a visa pathway specifically designed for allies like him, a reward for years of faithful military service. If that pathway wasn't backlogged and addled by bureaucracy, he might have gotten out of Afghanistan far earlier.
Instead of cashing in on a promise made by the U.S. government, Baryalai and thousands of other Afghan allies were forced to fashion their own paths forward. Some now struggle to maintain legal status in neighboring countries. Others have become unwilling nomads in their own country, on the run to avoid detection. The burden has been on them to escape Taliban rule or become invisible in Afghanistan.
Senior Editor Jacob Sullum is nominated for best race and society reporting in print for "'Smoking Opium Is Not Our Vice,'" from the May 2024 issue of Reason, in which he details how anti-Chinese xenophobia in San Francisco fueled America's first drug war:
As politicians like [state Sen. Edward J.] Lewis saw it, the opium problem was inextricably intertwined with the Chinese problem. If the government could not forcibly remove these "filthy" foreigners, as Lewis seemed to prefer, it could at least make life as difficult as possible for them. As former congressman James Budd put it at an 1885 anti-Chinese meeting in Stockton, California, it was local authorities' "duty" to make conditions so "devilishly uncomfortable" that the Chinese would be "glad to leave."
Associate Editor Emma Camp is nominated for best education reporting in print for "The Real Student Loan Crisis," from the March 2024 issue of Reason, in which she examines widespread misconceptions about student loan debt and delves into a little-known law at the root of the issue:
This rapid rise in debt began after the 2005 Higher Education Reconciliation Act introduced a new offering called Graduate PLUS loans.
Following the 1992 Higher Education Amendments, most individuals could borrow no more than $18,500 a year from the federal government to pay for a graduate degree. Now, graduate students could borrow up to the total cost of attendance for their program, including living expenses.
Unsurprisingly, graduate student borrowing skyrocketed. While the inflation-adjusted amount owed by graduate borrowers rose just 7.8 percent from the 1999–2000 school year to the 2003–2004 school year (Education Department data are not available for every academic year), it rose 27 percent from 2007–2008 to 2011–2012.
Contributing Editor Lenore Skenazy is nominated for best activism journalism in print for "Kids Should Be Blindfolded and Dropped in the Woods at Night," from the October 2024 issue of Reason, in which she explores the Dutch "dropping" rite of passage and argues the U.S. would benefit from adopting this tradition:
Since most kids are afraid of the dark, afraid of the woods, and afraid of getting lost, a dropping sounds like a therapist's dream, accelerating exposure therapy in one wild night. Dropping may be one of the reasons kids in Holland are some of the happiest in the world.
"I remember just feeling scared, but not scared to the point I'd never do it again," says Kimberly Humphreys, a Dutch mom of three now living in Brisbane, Australia. In fact, she went on droppings year after year, always "realizing I could do things that I thought I wasn't capable of."
Senior Producer Austin Bragg, Director of Special Projects Meredith Bragg, and Producer John Carter are nominated for best humor/satire writing across TV, film, radio, and podcast for "Great Moments in Unintended Consequences: Doordash, Google AI, French Wikipedia (Vol. 16)," in which they examine (hilariously) how good intentions often lead to bad results:
Producer Andrew Heaton, Senior Producer Austin Bragg, Director of Special Projects Meredith Bragg, and Producer John Carter are nominated again in best broadcast humor/satire writing for "Partisan Post-Game (Episode 2)," in which they satirize Republican and Democratic coaches taking questions from the press:
Reporter Billy Binion, Video Art Director Adani Samat, and freelancers Qinling Li and Arthur Nazaryan are nominated for best activism journalism across TV, film, radio, and podcast for "This 'crazy fat lady' was arrested for her journalism," a documentary that tells the story of a citizen journalist who sparked a national First Amendment case after she was arrested for her reporting:
Senior Producer Zach Weissmueller, Video Editor Danielle Thompson, Executive Editor of Video and Podcasts Jim Epstein, Producer Kevin Alexander, and Video Art Director Adani Samat are nominated for best environmental reporting across TV, film, radio, and podcast for "The political sabotage of nuclear power," a documentary that explores the backlash to a nuclear-powered future—which once promised abundant, emissions-free energy—and how the long nuclear power winter might finally be coming to an end in the U.S.:
Senior Producer Zach Weissmueller, Video Editor Danielle Thompson, Producer César Báez, Video Art Director Adani Samat, and Executive Editor of Video and Podcasts Jim Epstein are nominated for best feature documentary for "Javier Milei: Madman? Or savior?" which profiles Argentina's first self-identified libertarian president and asks if his reforms are working:
Editor at Large Nick Gillespie is nominated for best regular podcast for his The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie episode "Steven Pinker: What Went Wrong at Harvard," during which Pinker—the psychologist and best-selling author—argues that Harvard University's free speech policy was so "selectively prosecuted that it became a national joke."
Reporter Billy Binion is nominated for best podcast profile/interview with nonentertainment personalities for his 2024 interview with exoneree Amanda Knox, in which they discuss Knox's views on true crime and media bias, her efforts to reform coercive interrogation practices, her relationship with the lead prosecutor on her case, and her response to those who still believe she's lying:
Reporter Eric Boehm and former Podcast Producer Hunt Beaty are nominated for best limited series podcast for Season 2 of Why We Can't Have Nice Things, which explores how the government is making Americans poorer and sicker with its flawed approach to health care:
Winners will be announced on Sunday, June 22, at the Millennium Biltmore Hotel in downtown Los Angeles. Thanks to the press club, as well as to our readers, subscribers, and supporters, who make it possible for us to produce meaningful journalism. You can subscribe to Reason here, find our video journalism here, and listen to all of our podcasts here.
The post Reason Nominated for 17 Southern California Journalism Awards appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Miami Herald
27 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
White House responds to the latest Elon Musk jab
It appears that some distance from Washington, D.C. has given Tesla CEO Elon Musk some clarity about President Donald Trump and his economic agenda. Trump has repeatedly said that balancing the budget was one of his top priorities. In fact, during a recent cabinet meeting, he said that his drive to balance the federal budget was one of the main reasons he won so handily last November. The Department of Government Efficiency was supposed to be a big part of that drive. Related: Trump decision leaves Elon Musk in a serious bind In the same meeting, Musk bemoaned the $2 trillion annual deficit the U.S. government is running, noting that the debt's interest payments exceed the annual U.S defense budget. But that cabinet meeting was three months ago, and since then, a lot has changed about the president's priorities, as well as Musk's. The number one mission on the White House agenda right now is getting the federal spending budget passed by the Republican controlled Congress. Trump has described his bill as big and beautiful, but the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office says it would increase the federal deficit by $3.8 trillion over the next decade. There aren't enough DOGE cuts in the world to pay for extending the Trump tax cuts while increasing entitlement and defense spending. Trump's claim that tariffs would help balance the budget has also proven specious. Musk recently left his post as the head of DOGE, returning to his work at Tesla and SpaceX. He is using his newfound freedom to speak up. Image source:After being fully in the tank for Trump, Musk has begun exercising his free speech about his recent disagreements with the administration. Last week, he told CBS, "I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing." Musk once made it a point to sport a red hat that read 'Trump Was Right About Everything,' but now he says he is a free thinker. "It's not like I agree with everything the administration does...I mean, I agree with much of what the administration does, but we have differences of opinion on the things that I don't entirely agree with," Musk told CBS. Related: Elon Musk explains DOGE mission, takes shot at government On Tuesday, he took his criticism a step further. "I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it, you know you did wrong. You know it," Musk tweeted out. Musk tweeted that Tuesday afternoon before the daily scheduled White House press briefing, which gave Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt a chance to respond on behalf of the White House. Leavitt, who has had no issue being combative with people who have questioned the administration in the past, took a more respectful tone with Musk. "The president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill. It doesn't change the president's bill. This is one big, beautiful bill, and he's sticking to it," Leavitt said. The budget isn't the only issue where the White House and Musk clash. In early April, Musk went after Trump Senior Advisor Peter Navarro over tariffs, before Navarro returned fire and Trump backed Navarro. Since then, Musk's criticisms have been more muted. It's something he acknowledged in the CBS interview. "It's difficult for me to bring that up in an interview, because it creates a buildup of tension. So I'm stuck in a bind where I don't want to speak up against the administration, but I also don't want to take responsibility for everything the administration is doing," he said. Related: Tesla execs question Elon Musk over controversial X post The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.


San Francisco Chronicle
28 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump administration pulls $4 billion in federal funding for California high-speed rail
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration plans to pull the plug on federal funding to California's high-speed rail project. Following a review of the $4 billion in federal funds allocated to California's bullet train project launched in February, the Transportation Department said it plans to terminate federal funding for the project, according to a report released Wednesday. 'We have $4 billion that has been authorized to go to California to build this project and we don't want to invest in boondoggles,' Transportation Sec. Sean Duffy told Fox News Wednesday. The state will have 30 days to make the case that it has complied with the grant's terms and any corrective action it plans to take before the federal government can terminate funding. The Transportation Department is not asking for the state to repay federal funding previously given for the project, but said it could do so in the future — although any attempts to do so would likely be unsuccessful. 'What started as a proposed 800-mile system was first reduced to 500 miles, then became a 171-mile segment, and is now very likely ended as a 119-mile track to nowhere. In essence, (the California High-Speed Rail Authority) has conned the taxpayer out of its $4 billion investment, with no viable plan to deliver even that partial segment on time,' Drew Feeley, acting administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration, said. The federal government 'cannot continue to commit taxpayer dollars to (the California High-Speed Rail Authority's) Sisyphean endeavor,' Feeley said. California's high-speed rail project is a 'story of broken promises and of waste of Federal taxpayer dollars.' The Trump administration has 'been laying the groundwork for this for month. They're completely hostile, not just to California high-speed rail, but rail in general and public transportation,' state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, told the Chronicle. 'This is a Neanderthal administration that probably thinks public transportation is a communist plot.' Wiener, a staunch proponent of the bullet train, acknowledged the project's challenges. 'We certainly have to do better in California in terms of project delivery, but … it's not a reason to start canceling major, transformative public infrastructure projects. We need to find a way to get these projects done more efficiently and more effectively,' Wiener said. The first Trump administration pursued terminating the project's funding in 2019, but the Biden administration negotiated a 2021 settlement with the state to continue supporting the segment from Bakersfield to Merced. The project's costs — initially estimated to be $33 billion and now expected to cost between $89 billion and $128 billion — have ballooned and its timelines have been repeatedly delayed. Gov. Gavin Newsom and state Democrats have not backed down on funding for high-speed rail in past budgets, despite opposition from Republicans. Newsom has acknowledged for months that Trump would try to claw back money for the project, just as Trump did during his first term. Newsom has promised to fight any efforts to revoke the money. The high-speed rail funding is just one bucket of federal money Trump has threatened to withhold from California, along with federal health care and education funding. 'There still is the rule of law, still the court system, there's still due process,' Newsom told reporters in January when he unveiled an initial version of his 2025-26 state budget proposal. 'You can threaten, as Trump has consistently done ... but ultimately those federal dollars will be recovered.' Since January, California's budget outlook has deteriorated significantly, and the Newsom administration now predicts California faces a $12 billion shortfall, which will make it harder for state officials to backfill any federal funding cuts. Newsom and lawmakers are negotiating over the state budget for the upcoming fiscal year and must reach a deal on how to balance the budget this month to meet constitutional deadlines. Even with the state's difficult financial situation this year, Wiener said he expected the project to move forward because 'it's not about one year, this is about the long-term health and economic strength of California.' Republicans have for years decried the project's skyrocketing costs and lack of progress. President Donald Trump told reporters Feb. 5 that he would personally investigate the high-speed rail project. Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Rocklin (Placer County), introduced legislation on Jan. 6 to make the project ineligible for further federal funding, the same day Newsom drove a symbolic spike in the ground to celebrate the rail line's first 22-mile segment, from the border of Tulare and Kern counties to Poplar Avenue in Wasco (Kern County). Republicans in the Legislature sent a letter to Trump Feb. 13 expressing support for his probe and saying they have a duty to constituents to 'carefully examine the viability of this project.' 'I want to see high-speed rail in America,' Duffy said. 'Why it can't be built in America and why it can't be built within time frames that work for the people that invest in these projects makes no sense to me.' State leaders have focused largely on finishing the stretch of high-speed rail track from Merced to Bakersfield, with the idea of linking it to two other bullet train lines: the High Desert Corridor in Los Angeles, and the privately owned Brightline West route from Las Vegas to Rancho Cucamonga (San Bernardino County). Ultimately, they also want to connect to Caltrain's commuter line on the Peninsula, patching together a network that somewhat resembles the original vision from the mid-1990s. The loss of this funding would 'certainly be a setback, but it is a relatively small percentage of the overall budget of the project,' Wiener said. 'It's not a death knell.'


USA Today
28 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump administration's emerging surveillance state raises privacy concerns
Trump administration's emerging surveillance state raises privacy concerns Civil liberties advocates say the Trump administration's data collection and sharing endanger Americans' constitutional rights. Show Caption Hide Caption Privacy at risk as Trump expands surveillance. Here's what we know. The Trump administration is expanding government surveillance with Big Tech's help. Here's what we know now about what's being tracked. DENVER ‒ For decades, the government has been able to watch where you drive and where you walk. It can figure out where you shop, what you buy and with whom you spend time. It knows how much money you have, where you've worked and, in many cases, what medical procedures you've had. It can figure out if you've attended a protest or bought marijuana, and it can even read your emails if it wants. But because all of those data points about you were scattered across dozens of federal, state and commercial databases, it wasn't easy for the government to easily build a comprehensive profile of your life. That's changing ‒ fast. With the help of Big Tech, in just a few short months the Trump administration has expanded the government surveillance state to a whole new level as the president and his allies chase down illegal immigrants and suspected domestic terrorists while simultaneously trying to slash federal spending they've deemed wasteful and keep foreigners from voting. And in doing so, privacy experts warn, the federal government is inevitably scooping up, sorting, combining and storing data about millions of law-abiding Americans. The vast data storehouses, some of which have been targeted for access by Elon Musk's DOGE teams, raise significant privacy concerns and the threat of cybersecurity breaches. "What makes the Trump administration's approach so chilling is that they are seeking to collect and use data across federal agencies in ways that are unprecedented," said Cody Venzke, a senior policy counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union. "The federal government's collection of data has always been a double-edged sword." Americans value their privacy Americans have fiercely guarded and worried about their privacy even from the country's earliest days: The Constitution's Fourth Amendment specifically limits the government's ability to invade a person's privacy. Those concerns have only grown as more government functions are carried out online. A 2023 survey by the Pew Research Center found that 71% of Americans worry about the government's use of data about them, up from 64% in 2019. The survey found the concern was greatest among those people who lean or consistently vote Republican, up from 63% to 77%. The level of concern among people who lean or consistently vote Democrat remained steady at 65%, the survey found. That same survey found that Americans overall are almost as concerned about government access to their data as they are about social media companies having access. People who had attended college were more worried about data privacy, while people with high school degrees were in general "confident that those who have access to their personal information will do the right thing." In acknowledgment of those concerns, the federal government carefully stores most data about Americans in separate databases, from Social Security payments to Medicare reimbursements, housing vouchers and food stamps. That limits the ability of government employees to surreptitiously build comprehensive profiles of Americans without court oversight. In the name of rooting out fraud, and government inefficiency, however, President Donald Trump in March ordered federal agencies under his control to lower the walls between their data warehouses. The Government Accounting Office estimates the federal government loses $233 billion to $521 billion to fraud annually, much of that because of improper payments to contractors or falsified medical payments, according to a GAO report in April. The report also noted significant losses via Medicare or unemployment fraud and pandemic-era stimulus payments. "Decades of restricted data access within and between agencies have led to duplicated efforts, undetected overpayments, and unchecked fraud, costing taxpayers billions," President Donald Trump said in a March 20 executive order that helped create the new system. "This executive order dismantles unnecessary barriers, promotes inter-agency collaboration, and ensures the Federal Government operates responsibly and efficiently to safeguard public funds." Merging of commercial and government databases Supporters say this kind of data archive, especially video surveillance coupled with AI-powered facial recognition, can also be a powerful tool to fight crime. Authorities in New Orleans used video footage collected by privately owned security cameras to help capture at least one of the fugitives in a high-profile prison escape in May. And systems that read license plates helped Colorado police track down a suspect accused of repeatedly vandalizing a Tesla dealership. White House authorities are now prosecuting some Tesla vandalism cases as terrorism. But the new White House efforts go far beyond anything ever attempted in the United States, allowing the government to conduct intrusive surveillance against almost anyone by combining government and commercial databases. Privacy experts say it's the merging of government and commercial databases that poses the most significant concern because much of it can be done without court oversight. As part of the broader White House effort, contractors are building a $30 million system to track suspected gang members and undocumented immigrants and buying access to a system that tracks passengers on virtually every U.S.-based airline flight. And federal officials also are making plans to compile and share state-level voting registration information, which the president argues is necessary to prevent foreign nationals from illegally voting in federal elections. Privacy experts say that while all of that data has long been collected and kept separate by different government agencies or private vendors ‒ like your supermarket frequent shopper card and cell phone provider ‒ the Trump administration is dramatically expanding its compilation into comprehensive dossiers on Americans. Much of the work has been kicked off by Musk's DOGE teams, with the assistance of billionaire Peter Thiel's Denver-based Palantir. Opponents say such a system could track women who cross state lines for abortions − something a police officer in Texas is accused of doing − or be abused by law enforcement to target political opponents or even stalk romantic partners. And if somehow accessed by hackers, the centralized systems would prove a trove of information for fraud or blackmail. The nonpartisan, nonprofit Project on Government Oversight has been warning about the risks of federal surveillance expansion for years, and it noted that Democrats and Republicans alike have voted to expand such information-gathering. "We need our leaders to recognize that as the surveillance apparatus grows, it becomes an enticing prize for a would-be autocrat," POGO said in a report in August 2024. "Our country cannot build and expand a surveillance superstructure and expect that it will not be turned against the people it is meant to protect." Starting with immigration, ending where? Trump campaigned in 2024 on a platform of tough immigration enforcement, including large-scale deportations and ending access by undocumented people to federal programs. Immigrants' rights advocates point out that people living illegally in the United States are generally barred from federal programs, although those who have children born as U.S. citizens can often access things like food assistance or health care. Supporters say having access to that data will help them prioritize people for deportation by comparing work history and tax payments to immigration status, work that used to be far more labor-intensive. Because federal officials don't know exactly who is living illegally in the United States, the systems by default must scoop up information about everyone first. One example: A newly expanded program to collect biometric data from suspected illegal immigrants intercepted at sea also can be used to collect the same information on American citizens under the vague justification of "officer safety." That data can be retained for up to 75 years, according to federal documents. "It's only a matter of time before the harmful ripples from this new effort reach other groups," Venzke said.