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.

 

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Mother Jones Makes Chicago Tribune's Annual 50 Favorite Magazines List

| Wed Jun. 27, 2007 2:37 PM PDT

Hot(tish) off the Chicago Tribune presses, their list of the magazines they consider to be the best in the country.

"Every year we ask each other what periodicals we've been reading, and then we ask you. Every year we argue about what makes a good magazine and why we rush to pick up certain titles or swipe them from a neighbor's desk. We urge each other to try something new, and we smack our foreheads when a title bubbles up that we'd completely missed."

"...Mother Jones. As well-written, at its best, as anything out there (check out the story on the guy who gets 60 miles per gallon in a plain old Honda Accord), Mother Jones is a lot better than we remembered. Unabashedly liberal but more entertaining than the Nation and journalistically oriented but more passionate than the news weeklies, it fills a need we didn't know we had."

They like us, they really, really like us! We're one of only six mags given a shout-out in the news/business/point of view category. And if you're into who got dissed—and there are some most notable exceptions—I've pasted the whole list in after the jump.

Forget Politics 2.0, What About Pot 2.0?

| Tue Jun. 26, 2007 11:41 PM PDT

At the risk of dating myself, back in 1988, when I was close to graduating from college, the average THC level in pot was 3.5 percent. And today? Well today the government says it's 8.5 percent, which is up from 7 percent in 2003. And if I scored some weed in Oregon, it's possible that I'd be buying pot that has a THC level of 33.12 percent. Clearly, as Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), scolds us, "we are not talking about the drug of the 1960s and 1970s— this is Pot 2.0."

Ah, the 2.0 meme. We at MoJo are guilty of of exploiting it ourselves. In this case, what do these numbers mean? To this Reason says:

As The Drug War Chronicle's Scott Morgan notes, this increase is a far cry from drug czar John Walters' 2002 claim that "the potency of available marijuana has not merely 'doubled,' but increased as much as 30 times"—a ratio that could not possibly hold true unless you were comparing the most potent marijuana money can buy to nonpsychoactive ditchweed.

Clearly, Nick Gillespe and his crew know their chronic. Invite us to some Reason parties! Extra points if we can party with Jack Shafer.

So different pot has different potencies. This has always been true, or I have read. But consider that the figures that NIDA quotes rely on research from the University of Mississippi's Marijuana Potency Project. As Gary Greenberg reported in MoJo back in 2005, NIDA grows pot at Ole Miss—a partnership that forms the only legal producer of marijuana in the U.S. (and an irony I'll leave to fellow fans of Terry Southern to mull over). Ole Miss bases this particular batch of research on "59,369 samples of cannabis, 1,225 hashish samples, and 443 hash oil samples" that have been confiscated since 1975.

(Wait just a minute, what about the aforementioned pot from the 60s and [half of] the 70s?)

But while 62K-odd samples of weed sounds like a lot and all, what of NIDA/Ole Miss' ability to assess potency? As Greenberg points out (in a piece on the affect a sprayable form of medical marijuana known as Sativex might have on both sides of the drug debate that is much more serious than this blog post), the anti-drug policies of the government have filtered down to Ole Miss' research, to the point where:

NIDA's brown, stems-and-seeds-laden, low-potency pot—what's known on the streets as "schwag"—cannot stack up against the dense green, aromatic, and powerful sinsemilla favored by most medical marijuana patients (and grown by Sativex producer GW). Doblin asked the University of Mississippi to grow the good stuff for him, but they refused, so he approached a botanist at the University of Massachusetts, who applied to the DEA to grow research-grade pot in a 200-square-foot room in the basement of a building in Amherst. This started a whole new kind of collegiate rivalry, the Rebels squaring off against the Minutemen over the quality of their pot. In a letter to the DEA, Mississippi's botanist—after pointing out that no one had ever officially complained about the "adequacy" of their product—trumpeted recently acquired "custom-manufactured deseeding equipment" and a new stock of seeds that had allowed Ole Miss to amass more than 50,000 joints' worth of a "special batch" of high-potency, smooth-smoking weed.Three and a half years after UMass kicked off the battle—and only after a judge ordered the feds to make their decision—the Rebels prevailed, its monopoly preserved when the DEA denied UMass the license necessary to grow pot legally.

Ya gots to love the fight for government grants. In any case, the feds have taken their potency data and used it to craft a film called "The Purple Brain" (purple being the 2.0 version of Maui wowie), which NORML is calling Reefer Madness 2.0.

As in so many things these days, one wishes for something approximating independent analysis. I don't trust the government's research on drugs; its hyperbole and scare tactics on pot in particular seemed design to defend status quos (border and prison policies) that worsen, not solve, larger societal problems at hand. Nor do I trust NORML et al, even, and perhaps especially, when, having gotten nowhere on legalization per se, they reframe the issue as a balm for the sick and dying. Allowing medical marijuana is a no-brainer in my book, but I just think it's a little unseemly when perfectly healthy pot-positive types hide behind AIDS and cancer patients.

The problem is that as long as the government forbids most independent marijuana studies—by limiting the ability to get the stuff legally—we're likely to remain buffeted by agendas, not guided by science.

But meanwhile, don't those confiscated samples of pot providing some kind of trend line seem fishy on its face? Any statisticians out there?

When the Netroots Attack! MoJo's Politics 2.0 Package

| Tue Jun. 26, 2007 11:25 AM PDT

Are we entering a new era of digital democracy—or just being conned by a bunch of smooth-talking geeks? That's the central question behind Mother Jones' Politics 2.0 package, which went up on the home page today. (Monika's and my ed note on the topic can be found here.)

In it we explore whether A-list netroots bloggers are acting more like political bosses of old. And chart the GOP/Pay-Pal connection: a bunch of Silicon Valley conservatives now trying to build the right-wing MoveOn from the top down. In light of the Supreme Court's campaign finance decision yesterday, our piece on how despite the advent of viral video like "macaca" and "Hillary 1984," the 30-second TV campaign spot ain't going anywhere yet seems more pertinent than ever.

And we published great excerpts (and full interviews) with 27 netizens, digerati, and politicos including Lawrence Lessig, Esther Dyson, Jimmy Wales, Howard Dean, and the "Hillary 1984" guy.

Oh, and I interviewed Digg founder Kevin Rose to get the scoop on whether his site can be gamed, and what's up with those Ron Paul supporters, and the perils of making video while drinking heavily.

Check it out.

Tue Mar. 12, 2013 6:40 PM PDT
Sun Feb. 17, 2013 10:02 PM PST
Fri Apr. 27, 2012 12:00 AM PDT
Sat Feb. 4, 2012 2:34 PM PST
Mon Jan. 23, 2012 8:50 PM PST
Sun Oct. 16, 2011 12:25 AM PDT
Tue Jun. 21, 2011 2:47 PM PDT
Tue May. 3, 2011 12:19 AM PDT
Fri Feb. 4, 2011 2:00 AM PST
Mon Oct. 25, 2010 3:00 AM PDT
Mon Apr. 19, 2010 12:00 AM PDT
Mon Jan. 18, 2010 10:21 PM PST
Mon Jan. 18, 2010 3:40 PM PST
Fri Jan. 15, 2010 10:06 PM PST
Wed Dec. 30, 2009 3:33 AM PST
Thu Dec. 24, 2009 9:49 AM PST
Mon Dec. 7, 2009 1:16 AM PST
Fri Oct. 23, 2009 4:25 AM PDT
Wed Sep. 23, 2009 12:01 AM PDT
Wed Sep. 9, 2009 7:51 PM PDT
Wed Sep. 9, 2009 4:35 PM PDT
Fri Aug. 28, 2009 3:20 PM PDT
Wed Aug. 19, 2009 9:46 PM PDT
Thu Aug. 13, 2009 3:08 PM PDT
Thu Aug. 13, 2009 11:39 AM PDT
Tue Aug. 11, 2009 11:12 AM PDT
Tue Aug. 11, 2009 4:00 AM PDT
Sat Aug. 8, 2009 11:16 AM PDT
Thu Aug. 6, 2009 11:36 AM PDT
Tue Aug. 4, 2009 4:01 PM PDT
Tue Aug. 4, 2009 1:36 PM PDT
Sun Aug. 2, 2009 8:09 PM PDT
Wed Jul. 29, 2009 5:14 PM PDT
Thu Jul. 9, 2009 3:24 PM PDT