Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery

Editor in Chief

Since taking the editorial helm at Mother Jones in late 2006, Clara and her co-editor, Monika Bauerlein, have won two National Magazine Awards for general excellence, relaunched MotherJones.com, founded a now 13-person Washington bureau, won a PEN award for editing, given birth, and forgotten what it's like to sleep. It probably doesn't help she's on Twitter so much.

Full Bio | Get my RSS |

Clara Jeffery is co-editor of Mother Jones, where, together with Monika Bauerlein, she has spearheaded an era of editorial growth and innovation, marked by the addition of now 13-person Washington bureau, an overhaul of the organization's digital strategy and a corresponding 15-fold growth in traffic, and the winning of two National Magazine Awards for general excellence. When Jeffery and Bauerlein received a PEN award for editing in 2012, the judges noted: “With its sharp, compelling blend of investigative long-form journalism, eye-catching infographics and unapologetically confident voice, Mother Jones under Jeffery and Bauerlein has been transformed from what was a respected—if under-the-radar—indie publication to an internationally recognized, powerhouse general-interest periodical influencing everything from the gun-control debate to presidential campaigns. In addition to their success on the print side, Jeffery and Bauerlein’s relentless attention to detail, boundless curiosity and embrace of complex subjects are also reflected on the magazine’s increasingly influential website, whose writers and reporters often put more well-known and deep-pocketed news divisions to shame. Before joining the staff of Mother Jones, Jeffery was a senior editor of Harper's magazine. Fourteen pieces that she personally edited have been finalists for National Magazine Awards, in the categories of essay, profile, reporting, public interest, feature, and fiction. Works she edited have also been selected to appear in various editions of Best American Essays, Best American Travel Writing, Best American Sports Writing, and Best American Science Writing. Clara cut her journalistic teeth at Washington City Paper, where she wrote and edited political, investigative, and narrative features, and was a columnist. Jeffery is a graduate of Carleton College and Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism. She resides in the Mission District of San Francisco with her partner Chris Baum and their son, Milo. Their burrito joint of choice is El Metate.

 

Paying for the NYTimes.com

| Thu Jul. 9, 2009 5:24 PM EDT

The New York Times is surveying print subscribers (hey, why not me?) to see if they would consider paying an additional $2.50 per month to get the NYT.com content that is currently free. Non print subscribers, the survey explains, would have to pay $5.

This is silly. To be clear, I believe the NYT has every right to charge online readers, if they think that'll work. Journalism takes money.  Journalism is essential for a healthy democracy.  Journalists work hard and deserve to be paid adequately for the work that they do. Yes, yes, I know all about Judy Miller, and some journalists are in it for their own fame. But many got in, and stay in, for the public good. And most toil away with no fame and an unclear future on the horizon.

How bad is it? The Times is the country's best paper, and likely to be the last one standing. Yet management there recently sent out a memo telling staffers to cut out texting, calling 411, and making international calls on staff cell phones and Blackberries. (God forbid we talk to someone in Iraq.) The Bloomberg story which broke the $5 paywall story notes that not only has print advertising all but vanished but online ad sales at the NYT and its sister papers are way down too, falling "8 percent and 3.5 percent in the first quarter and fourth quarter of 2008 respectively. They gained 6.5 percent last year." So much for the theory that online ads will (eventually) save us all.

So yes, charge online. And charge me for my crack-er-mobile access. I'll totally pay. But man alive, are you really saying that if I keep paying for the print edition—which I'm only doing to do my part to keep you afloat, which costs me @ $1,300 a year, which comes at great green guilt despite SF's recycling program—you'll only discount me a small latte's worth of the price you charge everybody else?

According to the Bloomberg piece there are only 647,695 weekday home subscribers. That's a scary low number; MoJo has a little more than a third as many print subscribers. Until the Times, or somebody, anybody, figures out a revenue model to ensure reporting's survival, I'll pony up and pay the $1,300 and the damn $2.50 (x12=$30). But I wouldn't count on most home subscribers to follow suit.

But perhaps the Times scheme will help do the messaging that journalists have been for too long too reticent to do. That we are what stands between you and governmental and corporate corruption. That following decades of deregulation, our watchdog powers are more in need than ever. That sustained beat reporting can't be done by people in their spare time. That lovely features and beautiful photo essays and book and movie reviews and all the rest great journalistic institutions offer is what makes for a great Sunday morning and a bareable subway ride. And that the Daily Show or NPR or CNN or Rachel Maddow can't do their job unless scores of other reporters do theirs. And that reporting takes money, dammit!

How can you support the reporting that Mother Jones does? You can subscribe, a bargin at a mere $15. Don't like dead trees? Take heart in the fact that our paper is 90% recycled or get the digital edition. You can also help us by signing up to our newsletters. There's a tipjar at the end of every story and blog post. You can give to our investigative fund, or our intern program in which we train the next generation of investigative journalists. Learn more here.

Clara Jeffery is Co-editor of Mother Jones. Read more of her stories here. And follow her on Twitter here.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

More Human Rights Allegations Against Mexican Army

| Wed Jul. 8, 2009 11:10 PM EDT

If you're a MoJo reader, you're already aware that the Mexican army is committing gross human-rights abuses under the guise of fighting the cartels. Chuck Bowden's amazing profile of a Mexican journalist forced to flee to the US and seek asylum put it best:

There are two Mexicos.

There is the one reported by the US press, a place where the Mexican president is fighting a valiant war on drugs, aided by the Mexican Army and the Mérida Initiative, the $1.4 billion in aid the United States has committed to the cause. This Mexico has newspapers, courts, laws, and is seen by the United States government as a sister republic.

It does not exist.

There is a second Mexico where the war is for drugs, where the police and the military fight for their share of drug profits, where the press is restrained by the murder of reporters and feasts on a steady diet of bribes, and where the line between the government and the drug world has never existed.

Today, Steve Fainaru and William Booth of the Washington Post have come out with a fine piece rounding up other stories of horrific treatment at the hands of the Mexican Army:

Racist Outrage of the Day (Year?)

| Wed Jul. 8, 2009 3:42 PM EDT

Blood, prepare to boil. According to the NBC affliate in Philadelphia, the Valley Swim Club booted a day camp of inner city kids—which had paid $1900 for summer swimming rights—after members refused to swim with black kids. Really.

"I heard this lady, she was like, 'Uh, what are all these black kids doing here?' She's like, 'I'm scared they might do something to my child,'" said camper Dymire Baylor....

"When the minority children got in the pool all of the Caucasian children immediately exited the pool," Horace Gibson, parent of a day camp child, wrote in an email. "The pool attendants came and told the black children that they did not allow minorities in the club and needed the children to leave immediately."

The next day the club told the camp director that the camp's membership was being suspended and their money would be refunded....


The explanation they got was either dishearteningly honest or poorly worded.
 
"There was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion … and the atmosphere of the club," John Duesler, President of The Valley Swim Club said in a statement.

In a statement! Wow. The mind reels. First at the racism. And then at the PR bungling. When I posted this to Facebook, a got a note from a (white) friend who grew up in Philly. It didn't surprise him, he said; racism in that 'burb is entrenched. Worth noting that the comments on the NBC site, many of which were horrifc a hour ago, have been disabled.

You can follow this link to let Valley know what you think.

 Update: Senator Arlen Specter has said he'll investigate. And the nice people at Girard College, "a private Philadelphia boarding school for children who live in low-income and single parent homes," have offered their pool. (H/T Tim Dickinson via FB)

Drug War's Latest Victim: The PAN

| Tue Jul. 7, 2009 11:44 AM EDT

Yesterday, the Mexican people handed President Felipe Calderon and his PAN party a stunning rebuke, giving the PRI—the party that held insanely corrupt sway over the country for 70 years—the upper hand in Congress and many of the contested governorships, including some thought to be PAN strongholds.

The reason? Well the economy for one, but also that Mexicans are fed up with drug-related violence consuming their country and don't think that Calderon's war on the cartels has done much good. (A war that we are helping to fund.)

That's no surprise to anyone who reads Charles Bowden's harrowing piece on Emilio Gutíerrez Soto, a reporter who found himself on the wrong side of corrupt army officials who are using the pretext of the drug war to wage their own bid for power. Calderon may honestly be trying to root out corruption, but it is so deep rooted, the cartels so bloodthirsty, that Meixcan citizens are fed up.

The military has again flooded northern Mexico, ever since President Felipe Calderón assumed office in December 2006 with a margin so razor thin that many Mexicans think he is an illegitimate president. One of his first acts was to declare a war on the nation's thriving drug industry, and his favorite tool was to be the Mexican Army, portrayed as less corrupt than the local or national police. Now some 45,000 soldiers, nearly 25 percent of the Army, are marauding all over the country, escalating the mayhem that consumes Mexico. In 2008, more than 6,000 Mexicans died in the drug violence, a larger loss than the United States has endured during the entire Iraq War. Since 2000, two dozen reporters have been officially recorded as murdered, at least seven more have vanished, and an unknown number have fled into the United States. But all numbers in Mexico are slippery, because people have so many ways of disappearing. In 2008, 188 Mexicans—cops, reporters, businesspeople—sought political asylum at US border crossings, more than twice as many as the year before. This is the wave of gore the man rides as he heads north.

Emilio has applied for asylum. The cartels have threatened his US lawyer, who now starts his car with a remote control. Read the piece. Watch his interview with Reporters Without Borders. And then contemplate the fact that the cartels are openly advocating for the candidates of their choice, infiltrating our border patrol, and already operate in 259 US cities.

This is your war on drugs.

Media Matters, Local Edition

| Mon Jul. 6, 2009 5:45 PM EDT

In the will-journalism-take-democracy-down-with-it files, Mike has a really interesting report on advertorial worming its way into local news here over at The Riff. To whit:

 

A few weeks ago, my friend Amy Shelf got a call from San Francisco’s KRON 4, a former NBC affiliate, now independent, that bills itself “the Bay Area’s News Station.” The caller, a polite young woman, wanted to set up a meeting with Amy to talk about opportunities for her to appear on the air and speak about legal issues—Amy is a lawyer.

Was the caller a news producer? Not exactly. She wanted Amy to pay $1,000, presumably per month, to star in a five-minute monthly segment. Amy consulted her moral compass. “I was like, ‘I think that’s totally unethical,’" she tells me later, recalling the conversation. "And she said, ‘Well, it looks like the news.’ And I said, ‘That’s exactly what makes it unethical!’”

KRON's sales rep quickly added that the paid segments were identified as such, but Amy still wasn’t buying. Proper disclosure, of course, would make the whole thing just a bit less slimy. So I went online and viewed some of the segments in question. There was plenty to be concerned about.

You have to read the rest of his report to find out how bad it is out there. And once you do, perhaps you'll consider supporting journalism that reports to you. Just sayin'.

Wed Aug. 13, 2014 10:58 PM EDT
Tue Mar. 12, 2013 8:40 PM EDT
Mon Feb. 18, 2013 12:02 AM EST
Fri Apr. 27, 2012 2:00 AM EDT
Sat Feb. 4, 2012 4:34 PM EST
Mon Jan. 23, 2012 10:50 PM EST
Sun Oct. 16, 2011 2:25 AM EDT
Tue Jun. 21, 2011 4:47 PM EDT
Tue May. 3, 2011 2:19 AM EDT
Fri Feb. 4, 2011 4:00 AM EST
Mon Oct. 25, 2010 5:00 AM EDT
Mon Apr. 19, 2010 2:00 AM EDT
Tue Jan. 19, 2010 12:21 AM EST
Mon Jan. 18, 2010 5:40 PM EST
Sat Jan. 16, 2010 12:06 AM EST
Wed Dec. 30, 2009 5:33 AM EST
Thu Dec. 24, 2009 11:49 AM EST
Mon Dec. 7, 2009 3:16 AM EST
Fri Oct. 23, 2009 6:25 AM EDT
Wed Sep. 23, 2009 2:01 AM EDT
Wed Sep. 9, 2009 9:51 PM EDT
Wed Sep. 9, 2009 6:35 PM EDT
Fri Aug. 28, 2009 5:20 PM EDT
Wed Aug. 19, 2009 11:46 PM EDT
Thu Aug. 13, 2009 5:08 PM EDT
Thu Aug. 13, 2009 1:39 PM EDT
Tue Aug. 11, 2009 1:12 PM EDT
Tue Aug. 11, 2009 6:00 AM EDT
Sat Aug. 8, 2009 1:16 PM EDT
Thu Aug. 6, 2009 1:36 PM EDT
Tue Aug. 4, 2009 6:01 PM EDT
Tue Aug. 4, 2009 3:36 PM EDT
Sun Aug. 2, 2009 10:09 PM EDT
Wed Jul. 29, 2009 7:14 PM EDT
Thu Jul. 9, 2009 5:24 PM EDT