The San Quentin News is The New York Times of prison newspapers. The quality is consistent, the quantity is impressive, and it’s as close to a professional newspaper as the judges saw – from writing to reporting to design to photography. But those judges also had a warning for the staff: Don’t get too comfortable, because…
Only one vote separated first from second place. Mule Creek Post is punching above its weight. Like the San Quentin News, a lot of good stuff is packed into every issue. The San Quentin News just did everything slightly better. But the distance is narrow, and judges expect the competition in the future to be fierce.
The first two winners are traditional newspapers. The Endeavour is a traditional magazine. The difference is more than just format. The Endeavour emphasizes features, profiles, artwork, and even a few jokes (“News That Didn’t Really Happen”). Life isn’t just hard news. There’s a place for an excellent magazine, and The Endeavour fills it.
Top of the Mountain didn’t win because its 49 pages were more than double any other. It didn’t win because it had a focused theme (Women’s History Month) or a wide variety of content (from poetry to artwork). Honestly, all entries in this category were impressive and wide-ranging. What separated TOTM were the in-depth interviews and the news-you-can-use.
Interviews require a lot of effort. TOTM featured a Q&A with a sub shop owner who served 10 years, a profile on a state representative who was previously an inmate, and a Q&A with a rehab facilitator. There was also proven advice from “The Old-Timers Corner” and detailed instructions called “Tablet Tidbits.” TOTM was both quantity and quality.
There’s triumph in any publishing while in prison, but Perceptions Reimagined made it look easy. Interviews are a good way to get new information out to readers, even though it’s often the hardest way. Yet this issue was what we call “multi-sourced” – in other words, lots of other people quoted besides just the staff. It was also the only issue to feature photos of inmates.
Bursting with event news and helpful information about everything from Narcan to education grants, this only lacked for more wide-ranging coverage. The addition of bilingual information was also noted by the judges. This is a great start for a new publication.
The mere fact that Christopher Blackwell has been published in so many places (including The New York Times) and on so many topics (ranging from prison labor to the effects of climate change on the prison system) might overshadow how he writes and reports these stories. Whether first-person or third, Blackwell’s style shines through.
Steve Brooks consistently pulls off a tough trick: Packing his stories with facts and quotes without bogging down the entire thing. Good journalism balances human interest with supporting documentation, and Brooks exhibits exceptional equilibrium.
Whether he reports on others or bluntly shares his own story, Jeff McKee pulls no punches. His writing is smooth but his reporting is raw. The judges felt the distance between first place and third place was really slim in this category, because all three winners were excellent in slightly different ways.
While Al Jazeera labeled this story an essay, it’s really a hard-hitting yet personal story that addresses religious freedom in a powerful way. It even spurred a DOC investigation. This is an excellent example of explaining a specific issue with stories from your own background and the feelings of others in your situation. While this story is long, it reads fast. You’re never bored, and you’re always concerned.
To be honest, this category perplexed the judges. It’s difficult to tell when any journalism is impactful. What helped on this excellent story was the letter that came with it. If this category is repeated next year, we urge entrants to include comments about the story as well as the story itself. In this case, the story was excellent and the letter was illuminating.
A thorough story on a topic not many outsiders would even fathom existed. Yet the story lays out the case in such a thorough yet readable fashion, you end up agreeing whole-heartedly with a problem you didn’t know existed a few minutes earlier. Dense with facts and figures, this is still very easy to read.
The best news stories combine official statistics with human beings who are affected by those stats. That happens here to great effect. Susy, John, and Gus have tragic stories, and those are backed up by Department of Corrections numbers and expert quotes from an outside source. This is a textbook example of a news story done well.
Some journalists think a long story is more likely to win an award than a short one. Not so. Here’s proof. This is a shorter entry than many others in this category, but it tightly lays out its premise and backs it up. No wasted words, no unanswered questions. It’s just as long as it needs to be.
A solid story that lacks only for the clear writing of the first- and second-place winners. Writing isn’t just about style, it’s also about clarity, and the first few paragraphs here are just a little too dense. Once it gets rolling, though, it tells a thoughtful story very well, and it’s backed up by a slew of excellent sources. By the end, you understand the importance of this topic and share the concern of those interviewed.
We don’t often reveal the votes of the judges, but in this case, it was particularly relevant: 4-3 in favor of first place over second – and at least one judge changed his mind during our Zoom deliberations. Both entries were that good, but in very different ways.
The standout from McClary and McGhee was “Little Eddy,” a story one judge said “is just full of details just never seen by the average reader.” McClary’s first-person account of life below the “Crazy Unit” was fascinating, but in this category, judges favored entries with more reporting.
Long stories are not always the best stories. Often, they just demonstrate a need for better editing. Not here. All 5,600 words – the longest entry in this category – were packed with important details from multiple sources. The judges were clearly divided, voting 4-3 to knock this down to second only after briefly considering assigning co-winners for first place. The Zoom deliberations split the judges because this story overcame the greatest hurdles to publishing and was clearly and cleanly written. In the end, it came down to which story was more moving. But that’s no insult to Blackwell and Zwieg, who impressed all the judges.
This story could have been a dry list of numbers and citations from academic research. Instead, it contains detailed anecdotes and quotes that back up – and breathe life into – that research. Showing how human beings are affected by otherwise mundane policy is one of the noble traits of the best journalism. And that shows here.
One of the judges put it simply, and the other judges agreed: “This is a punch in the gut.” While wincingly graphic in places, the awful details are used sparingly to advance the story, not to gross out the reader. The writing is clear, the facts are precise, and the sourcing is varied. When both the writing and reporting are top-notch and the topic is this important, you have a winner.
This New York Times first-person story is, of course, well written and pristinely reported. The judges expressed some concern that perhaps the writer benefited from professional editing more than other entrants. But in the end, it didn’t matter. This was clearly second place, not because it lacked any skill of the first-place winner, but simply because that first-place winner’s subject matter was so strong. That’s no slight here. You write the best story you can about the topic at hand, and this couldn’t have been done better.
Despite what some writers think, good feature stories aren’t about style and flash. They’re about cleanly and crisply telling other people’s stories. And that’s what happens here. The writer gets out of the way and lets the sources tell their own tales. And those are simple and human and powerful.
The best opinion pieces contain more than just opinion. Other winners in this category cited facts and figures to back up their arguments. This one didn’t – yet it still won. Why? As one judge said, “It was just that good.” Sometimes the exception proves the rule. This personal story is less than a traditional op-ed but much more than a personal essay.
This is a classically written op-ed. It draws you in with a personal story, weaves in facts and stats, and leaves the reader both informed and concerned. In just a few hundred words, Christopher Monihan deftly explains prison PTSD and gives it a human face, all the while in total control of his writing voice.
Artmeus Blankenship makes you care deeply about a problem you didn’t even know existed. How many people, inside or out, know about this? But as the judges said, once you read this smart critique, you certainly will care. And you’ll share Artemus’ opinion afterward.
Artwork that either accompanies a story or stands alone as a representation of a news event or issue.
First Place
Jessica Garza
A beetle crawling into Jessica Garza’s cell inspired this intricate self-portrait that enamored all the judges. The striking colors are offset by the beige background details and a whimsical story of making an unlikely new friend in an unlikely place.
Second Place
Brian Hindson
A portrait of Brian Hindson’s prison workspace is bright, light, and impressive. It was perhaps the simplest entry, and a little meta – an artist drawing his art space. But it was also captivating for its combination of style and realism.
Third Place
Elsa Segura
Elsa Segura’s illustration is seemingly inspired by folk art, and the story behind it was particularly compelling. That split the judges, some who wanted to reward more complicated artistic entries and others who found the simplicity itself to be powerful. So in the end, Elsa’s work is what art is supposed to do: Create a discussion.
A rotating panel of eight judges met in a series of Zoom calls lasting an hour or more. Stillwater Awards executive director Michael Anguille was present on each judging call to lend perspective, but he didn’t vote.
– Bailey Carmack, prison research grad student
– Nicole DeCriscio, pro journalist
– Andy Duncan, journalism professor
– Andrew Fraieli, pro journalist
– Frank Housh, civil rights attorney, writer
– Michael Koretzky, pro journalist
– Gillian Manning, pro journalist
– Tammy Merrett, journalism professor
First Place
Second Place
Third Place
