National Magazine Award: Year of the Woman (Finally)

At last, byline parity in the writing and reporting categories.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Every year, when the National Magazine Award nominees are announced, there are some gnashed teeth and bitter feelings over what was—and wasn’t—nominated. (We got four [!!] nominations this year, so we’re very happy, if slightly confused.*) But over the last few years, there’s been outrage over one topic in particular: how few women writers are nominated, much less ultimately awarded the “Ellie,” for their work. Was this purely a result of the lack of female bylines in prominent magazines (as pointed out over the years by groups like WomenTK and VIDA)? Was it made worse by magazines not putting women’s work up for nominations? Was it judging bias?

Monika and I wrote about this last year, and in our opinion, it’s mostly the first. But in any case, whether by chance or by collective soul searching, this year has seen dramatic improvement within the reporting and writing categories (public interest, reporting, feature writing, essays and criticism, columns and commentary, and fiction). Last year, women were only nominated for seven of the available 25 slots, and were completely shut out of four categories. This year, they’ve garnered 17 of the available 34 spots, and women are nominees in every category. (Note: There are many other awards given at the National Magazine Awards, including ones to which bylines are attached, like personal service writing. But these are the categories most under debate when it comes to byline parity.)

So how do things break down?

Public Interest

Public Interest: This category basically honors investigative and/or “impact” journalism.  Last year it was the lone nonfiction bright spot for women, who comprised four of the five nominees. (Sarah Stillman, also up for an award this year, ultimately won.) This year, the ladies swept the category.*

Reporting

Reporting: Last year, there were no female nominees in this category (since expanded from five to seven, to account for the fact that there is no longer a profile category). This year two of the seven are women: Texas Monthly‘s Pam Colloff and the Texas Observer‘s Melissa del Bosque.

Feature Writing

Feature Writing: This is the “high points for style” category (also expanded this year). Last year, zero women. This year, three: MoJo‘s Mac McClelland as well as Texas Monthly’s Pam Coloff (again!) and Karen Russell in GQ.

Essays and Criticism

Essays and Criticism: Last year, zero women. This year, one: Mona Eltahawy in Foreign Policy.

Columns and Commentary

Columns and Commentary: Last year, zip. This year, three of five nominees are women: Daphne Merkin in Elle, The Nation‘s Katha Pollitt, and Slate‘s Dahlia Lithwick.

Fiction

Fiction: Last year there were three women nominated (Karen Russell for Zoetrope eventually won). This year, three women have been again nominated: Jennifer Haigh in Byliner, Alice Munro in Harper’s, Sarah Frisch in The Paris Review.

  • Byliner for “The Boy Vanishes,” by Jennifer Haigh; July
  • Harper’s Magazine for “Batman and Robin Have an Altercation,” by Stephen King; September
  • Harper’s Magazine for “Train,” by Alice Munro; April
  • McSweeney’s Quarterly for “River Camp,” by Thomas McGuane; September
  • The Paris Review for “Housebreaking,” by Sarah Frisch; December

 

The winners will be announced at the awards ceremony on May 2. May the best women—and men!—win.

*We confess to a little befuddlement as to why David Corn’s 47 Percent reporting didn’t get a public interest nomination, but the video itself got a nomination. But then the awards are evolving to figure out how to honor work that’s not a traditional magazine piece.

Note: Thanks to Dana Liebelson for helping whip up these charts. She’ll be on this list one day.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate