Kansas Reflector staff rakes in recognition with 16 awards in statewide journalism contest
Tecumseh South Elementary Students wheel the "moon tree" across a field before planting it May 28, 2024. The field is adjacent to the school, which is just east of Topeka in Shawnee County. This photo was part of an entry that won third place for best story/picture combination in the 2025 Kansas Press Association awards. (Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)
The width and breadth of Kansas Reflector journalism was recognized in the annual Kansas Press Association contest results announced Wednesday.
From business reporting to commentary to overall recognition, a swath of Reflector reporters, editors and contributors shared the 16 awards in the Division VII category. The task of writing these award summaries has fallen to me over the years, and you might think that the excitement fades, but it hasn't yet. Being part of this staff and effort to bring free, nonprofit journalism to the Sunflower State remains a spectacular privilege.
Editor in chief Sherman Smith was named Kansas journalist of the year, his third time winning that award since founding the Reflector in the summer of 2020. He also won first place in the series category for coverage of the Marion County Record newspaper raid anniversary. He shared that award with independent journalist Marisa Kabas.
Former Reflector and Missouri Independent reporter Allison Kite and Stateline's Kevin Hardy won first place for local business story.
Finally among the first place finishers, opinion contributors Eric Thomas and Mark McCormick were both recognized for column writing. I'm delighted to see Eric and Mark recognized for their determined, consistent and ever-readable pieces. I finished third in the category, which translates to a Reflector sweep of the top three finishers.
'I have the best job in the world because I get to work with all my favorite journalists in a tireless quest to speak truth to power and lift Kansans' voices,' Smith told me Wednesday evening.
I couldn't agree more.
Further staff members were honored with an array of second-place finishes. Reporter Anna Kaminski received the distinction for her entry in the military story category, while former reporter Rachel Mipro placed for an environmental story. Mipro departed in July, and Kaminski arrived in August. Working with both has been a joy.
Now we come to an eternally tricky piece of any awards story. That would be the writer covering his or her own awards. I placed second for journalist of the year for the second time in a row. In this case, however, I'm right behind Smith. I'm sure I'll never hear the end of it. I also finished second in editorial writing.
Other Kansas Press Association awards for Kansas Reflector staff included:
New Journalist Award: Third place, Anna Kaminski
Investigative Story: Third place, Sherman Smith
Education Story: Third place, ''Unapologetically loud': How student journalists fought a Kansas district over spyware and won,' Sherman Smith
Column Writing: Third place, Clay Wirestone
Column Writing: Third place, Max McCoy
Best Story/Picture Combination: Third place, 'Kansas elementary school students plant exclusive sweetgum that traversed the moon,' Sherman Smith
Military Story: Third Place, 'Bill protecting Kansans veterans from 'claim sharks' vaporized after flat tax failed,' Sherman Smith
Each year I repeat some variant on the journalistic truism that no one does these jobs for awards. The most important recognition I receive comes from our readers, both in person and through email. But only the must curmudgeonly of codgers would refuse such distinction when offered.
On behalf of Reflector staff, thanks to the KPA, and we hope to keep serving you all.
Clay Wirestone is Kansas Reflector opinion editor. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
20 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
After a senator's posts about the Minnesota shootings, his incensed colleagues refused to let it go
WASHINGTON (AP) — Mike Lee has in recent years become one of the Senate's most prolific social media posters, his presence seen in thousands of posts, often late at night, about politics. Fellow senators have grown accustomed to the Utah Republican's pugnacious online persona, mostly brushing it off in the name of collegiality. That is, until this past week. His posts, after the June 14 fatal shooting of a Minnesota lawmaker and her husband, incensed Lee's colleagues, particularly senators who were friends with the victims. It all added to the charged atmosphere in the Capitol as lawmakers once more confronted political violence in America. As the Senate convened for the week, Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn., marched past a crowd of reporters and headed toward the Senate floor: 'I can't talk right now, I have to go find Sen. Lee.' Smith, whose name was listed in the suspected shooter's notebooks recovered by law enforcement officials, spoke to Lee for several minutes. The next day, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., did the same. By midday Tuesday, Lee had deleted his tweets. 'I would say he seemed surprised to be confronted,' Smith later told reporters. The shooting unfolds On the morning of June 14, Gov. Tim Walz, D-Minn., announced that former state House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, had been shot and killed in their home outside Minneapolis. Another Democratic lawmaker, state Sen. John Hoffman, and his wife, Yvette, were critically injured, in a shooting at their home nearby. The next day, as police searched for the shooter, Lee posted a photo of the alleged shooter with the caption 'Nightmare on Waltz street' — an apparent misspelled attempt to shift blame toward Walz, who was his party's vice presidential nominee in 2024. In a separate post on his personal account, @BasedMikeLee, the senator shared photos of the alleged suspect alongside the caption: 'this is what happens When Marxists don't get their way.' On his official Senate social media account, Lee was 'condemning this senseless violence, and praying for the victims and their families.' A spokesperson for Lee did not respond to a request for comment. The man arrested, Vance Luther Boelter, 57, held deeply religious and politically conservative views. After moving to Minnesota about a decade ago, Boelter volunteered for a position on a state workforce development board, first appointed by then-Gov. Mark Dayton, a Democrat, in 2016, and later by Walz. Boelter has been charged with two counts of murder and two of attempted murder. Lee's online posts draw bipartisan backlash Once a critic of Donald Trump, Lee has since become one of the president's most loyal allies. Lee's online persona is well established, but this year it has become especially prominent: a Salt Lake Tribune analysis found that in the first three months of 2025, Lee averaged nearly 100 posts per day on X. What was different this time was the backlash came not just from Democrats. To Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., Lee's posts were 'insensitive, to say the least, inappropriate, for sure' and 'not even true.' 'I just think whenever you rush to a judgment like this, when your political instincts kick in during a tragedy, you probably should realign some priorities,' Cramer said. Republican state Rep. Nolan West wrote on social media that his respect for Lee had been 'rescinded.' A spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., did not respond to a request for comment. Last Monday night, after Smith's confrontation with Lee, a senior member of her staff sent a pointed message to Lee's office. 'It is important for your office to know how much additional pain you've caused on an unspeakably horrific weekend,' wrote Ed Shelleby, Smith's deputy chief of staff. He added, 'I pray that Senator Lee and your office begin to see the people you work with in this building as colleagues and human beings.' Lee avoided reporters for much of the week, though he did tell them he had deleted the posts after a 'quick' discussion with Klobuchar. Lee has not apologized publicly. 'We had a good discussion, and I'm very glad he took it down,' Klobuchar said at a news conference. Tragedy prompts reflection in Congress The uproar came at a tense time for the Senate, which fashions itself as a political institution that values decorum and respect. Senators are under intense pressure to react to the Trump administration's fast-paced agenda and multiple global conflicts. Republicans are in high-stakes negotiations over the party's tax and spending cuts plan. Democrats are anxious about how to confront the administration, especially after federal agents briefly detained Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., at a recent Department of Homeland Security news conference in California. Lawmakers believe it's time to lower the temperature. 'I don't know why Mike took the comments down, but it was the right thing to do,' said Sen. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M. 'I appreciate my Republican colleagues who were very clear with their observations. And those that spoke up, I want to commend them.' He added: 'We just all have to talk to each other. And what I learned from this week is people need to lean on each other more, and just get to know each other more as well.' ___ Associated Press reporter Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Miami Herald
20 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Michael Hiltzik: Social Security is still in good shape but faces challenges
The annual reports of the Social Security and Medicare trustees provide yearly opportunities for misunderstandings by politicians, the media, and the general public about the health of these programs. This year is no exception. A case in point is the response by House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, to the Social Security and Medicare trustees' projections about the depletion of the programs' reserves: "Doing nothing to address the solvency of these programs will result in an immediate, automatic, and catastrophic cut to benefits for the nearly 70 million seniors who rely on them." The reports say nothing about an "immediate" cut to benefits. They talk about cuts that might happen in 2034 and 2033, when there still would be enough money coming in to pay 89% of scheduled Medicare benefits and 81% of scheduled Social Security benefits. House Ways and Means Committee chairman Jason Smith, R-Missouri, used the release of the reports to plump for the budget resolution that the House narrowly passed on orders from President Trump and that is currently being masticated by several Senate committees. The reports, Smith said, make clear "how much we need pro-growth tax and economic policies that unleash our nation's growth, increase wages, and create new jobs." The budget bill "would do just that," he said. Neither Arrington nor Smith mentioned the leading threats to the programs coming from the White House. In Social Security's case, that's Trump's immigration, taxation and tariff policies, which work directly against the program's solvency. For Medicare, the major threat is a rise in healthcare costs. But those have flattened out as a percentage of gross domestic product since 2010, when the enactment of the Affordable Care Act brought better access to medical care to millions of Americans. That trend is jeopardized by Republican healthcare proposals, which encompass throwing millions of Americans off Medicaid. Policy proposals by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. such as discouraging vaccinations can only drive healthcare costs higher. Let's take a closer look. (The Social Security trustees are Kennedy, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer and newly confirmed Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano, all of whom serve ex officio; two seats for public trustees are vacant. The Medicare trustees are the same, plus Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.) The trust funds are built up from payroll taxes paid by workers and employers, along with interest paid on the treasury bonds the programs hold. At the end of this year, the Medicare trust fund will hold about $245 billion, and the Social Security fund - actually two funds, consisting of reserves for the old-age and disability programs, but typically considered as one - more than $2.3 trillion. Trump has consistently promised that he won't touch Social Security and Medicare, but actions speak louder than words. "Trump's tariffs and mass deportation program will accelerate the depletion of the trust fund," Kathleen Romig of the Center on Budget and Policy priorities observed after the release of the trustees' reports this week. "The Trump administration's actions are weakening the country's economic outlook and Social Security's financial footing." Immigration benefits the program in several ways. Because "benefits paid out today are funded from payroll taxes collected from today's workers," notes CBPP's Kiran Rachamallu, "more workers paying into the system benefits the program's finances." In the U.S., he writes, "immigrants are more likely to be of working age and have higher rates of labor force participation, compared to U.S.-born individuals." The Social Security trustees' fiscal projections are based on average net immigration of about 1.2 million people per year. Higher immigration will help build the trust fund balances, and immigration lower than that will "increase the funding shortfall." All told, "the Trump administration's plans to drastically cut immigration and increase deportations would significantly worsen Social Security's financial outlook." A less uplifting aspect of immigration involves undocumented workers. To get jobs, they often submit false Social Security numbers to employers - so payroll taxes are deducted from their paychecks, but they're unlikely ever to be able to collect benefits. In 2022, Rachamallu noted, undocumented workers paid about $25.7 billion in Social Security taxes. Trump's tariffs, meanwhile, could affect Social Security by generating inflation and slowing the economy. Higher inflation means larger annual cost-of-living increases on benefits, raising the program's costs. If they provoke a recession, that would weigh further on Social Security's fiscal condition. Trump also has talked about eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits. But since at least half of those tax revenues flow directly into Social Security's reserves, they would need to be replaced somehow. Trump has never stated where the substitute revenues could be found. Major news organizations tend to focus on the depletion date of the trust funds without delving too deeply into their significance or, more important, their cause. It's not unusual for otherwise responsible news organizations to parrot right-wing tropes about Social Security running out of money or "going broke" in the near future, which is untrue but can unnecessarily unnerve workers and retirees. The question raised but largely unaddressed by the trustee reports is how to reduce the shortfall. The Republican answer generally involves cutting benefits, either by outright reductions or such options as raising the full retirement age, which is currently set between 66 and 67 for those born in 1952-1959 and 67 for everyone born in 1960 or later. As I've reported, raising the retirement age is a benefit cut by another name. It's also discriminatory, for average life expectancy is lower for some racial and ethnic groups than for others. For all Americans, average life expectancy at age 65 has risen since the 1930s by about 6.6 years, to about 84 and a half. The increase has been about the same for white workers. But for Black people in general, the gain is just over five years, to an average of a bit over 83, and for Black men it's less than four years and two months, to an average of about 81 and four months. Life expectancy is also related to income: Better-paid workers have longer average lifespans than lower-income workers. The other option, obviously, is to leave benefits alone but increase the programs' revenues. This is almost invariably dismissed by the GOP, but its power is compelling. The revenue shortfall experienced by Social Security is almost entirely the product of rising economic inequality in the U.S. At Social Security's inception, the payroll tax was set at a rate that would cover about 92% of taxable wage earnings. Today, rising income among the rich has reduced that ratio to only about 82%. That could mean hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenues. The payroll tax is highly regressive. Those earning up to $176,100 this year pay the full tax of 12.4% on wage earnings (half deducted directly from their paychecks and half paid by their employers). Those earning more than that sum in wages pay nothing on the excess. To put it in perspective, the payroll tax bite on someone earning $500,000 in wages this year would pay not 12.4% in payroll tax (counting both halves of the levy), but about 4.4%. Eliminating the cap on wages, according to the Social Security actuaries, would eliminate half to three-quarters of the expected shortfall in revenues over the next 75 years, depending on whether benefits were raised for the highest earners. Taxing investment income - the source of at least half the income collected by the wealthiest Americans - at the 12.4% level rather than leaving it entirely untaxed for Social Security would reduce the shortfall by an additional 38%. Combining these two options would eliminate the entire shortfall. Social Security has already been hobbled by the Trump administration, Trump's promises notwithstanding. Elon Musk's DOGE vandals ran roughshod through the program, cutting staff and closing field offices, and generally instilling fears among workers and retirees that the program might not be around long enough to serve them. In moral terms, that's a crime. Those are the choices facing America: Cutting benefits is a dagger pointed directly at the neediest Americans. Social Security benefits account for 50% or more of the income nearly 42% of all beneficiaries, and 90% or more of the income of nearly 15% of beneficiaries. The wealthiest Americans, on the other hand, have been coasting along without paying their fair share of the program. Could the equities be any clearer than that? Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Los Angeles Times
a day ago
- Los Angeles Times
Social Security is still in good shape but faces challenges — from Trump
The annual reports of the Social Security and Medicare trustees provide yearly opportunities for misunderstandings by politicians, the media, and the general public about the health of these programs. This year is no exception. A case in point is the response by House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Tex.) to the Social Security and Medicare trustees' projections about the depletion of the programs' reserves: 'Doing nothing to address the solvency of these programs will result in an immediate, automatic, and catastrophic cut to benefits for the nearly 70 million seniors who rely on them.' The reports say nothing about an 'immediate' cut to benefits. They talk about cuts that might happen in 2034 and 2033, when there still would be enough money coming in to pay 89% of scheduled Medicare benefits and 81% of scheduled Social Security benefits. House Ways and Means Committee chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) used the release of the reports to plump for the budget resolution that the House narrowly passed on orders from President Trump and that is currently being masticated by several Senate committees. The reports, Smith said, make clear 'how much we need pro-growth tax and economic policies that unleash our nation's growth, increase wages, and create new jobs.' The budget bill 'would do just that,' he said. Neither Arrington nor Smith mentioned the leading threats to the programs coming from the White House. In Social Security's case, that's Trump's immigration, taxation and tariff policies, which work directly against the program's solvency. For Medicare, the major threat is a rise in healthcare costs. But those have flattened out as a percentage of gross domestic product since 2010, when the enactment of the Affordable Care Act brought better access to medical care to millions of Americans. That trend is jeopardized by Republican healthcare proposals, which encompass throwing millions of Americans off Medicaid. Policy proposals by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. such as discouraging vaccinations can only drive healthcare costs higher. Let's take a closer look. (The Social Security trustees are Kennedy, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer and newly confirmed Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano, all of whom serve ex officio; two seats for public trustees are vacant. The Medicare trustees are the same, plus Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.) The trust funds are built up from payroll taxes paid by workers and employers, along with interest paid on the treasury bonds the programs hold. At the end of this year, the Medicare trust fund will hold about $245 billion, and the Social Security fund — actually two funds, consisting of reserves for the old-age and disability programs, but typically considered as one — more than $2.3 trillion. Trump has consistently promised that he won't touch Social Security and Medicare, but actions speak louder than words. 'Trump's tariffs and mass deportation program will accelerate the depletion of the trust fund,' Kathleen Romig of the Center on Budget and Policy priorities observed after the release of the trustees' reports this week. 'The Trump administration's actions are weakening the country's economic outlook and Social Security's financial footing.' Immigration benefits the program in several ways. Because 'benefits paid out today are funded from payroll taxes collected from today's workers,' notes CBPP's Kiran Rachamallu, 'more workers paying into the system benefits the program's finances.' In the U.S., he writes, 'immigrants are more likely to be of working age and have higher rates of labor force participation, compared to U.S.-born individuals.' The Social Security trustees' fiscal projections are based on average net immigration of about 1.2 million people per year. Higher immigration will help build the trust fund balances, and immigration lower than that will 'increase the funding shortfall.' All told, 'the Trump administration's plans to drastically cut immigration and increase deportations would significantly worsen Social Security's financial outlook.' A less uplifting aspect of immigration involves undocumented workers. To get jobs, they often submit false Social Security numbers to employers — so payroll taxes are deducted from their paychecks, but they're unlikely ever to be able to collect benefits. In 2022, Rachamallu noted, undocumented workers paid about $25.7 billion in Social Security taxes. Trump's tariffs, meanwhile, could affect Social Security by generating inflation and slowing the economy. Higher inflation means larger annual cost-of-living increases on benefits, raising the program's costs. If they provoke a recession, that would weigh further on Social Security's fiscal condition. Trump also has talked about eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits. But since at least half of those tax revenues flow directly into Social Security's reserves, they would need to be replaced somehow. Trump has never stated where the substitute revenues could be found. Major news organizations tend to focus on the depletion date of the trust funds without delving too deeply into their significance or, more important, their cause. It's not unusual for otherwise responsible news organizations to parrot right-wing tropes about Social Security running out of money or 'going broke' in the near future, which is untrue but can unnecessarily unnerve workers and retirees. The question raised but largely unaddressed by the trustee reports is how to reduce the shortfall. The Republican answer generally involves cutting benefits, either by outright reductions or such options as raising the full retirement age, which is currently set between 66 and 67 for those born in 1952-1959 and 67 for everyone born in 1960 or later. As I've reported, raising the retirement age is a benefit cut by another name. It's also discriminatory, for average life expectancy is lower for some racial and ethnic groups than for others. For all Americans, average life expectancy at age 65 has risen since the 1930s by about 6.6 years, to about 84 and a half. The increase has been about the same for white workers. But for Black people in general, the gain is just over five years, to an average of a bit over 83, and for Black men it's less than four years and two months, to an average of about 81 and four months. Life expectancy is also related to income: Better-paid workers have longer average lifespans than lower-income workers. The other option, obviously, is to leave benefits alone but increase the programs' revenues. This is almost invariably dismissed by the GOP, but its power is compelling. The revenue shortfall experienced by Social Security is almost entirely the product of rising economic inequality in the U.S. At Social Security's inception, the payroll tax was set at a rate that would cover about 92% of taxable wage earnings. Today, rising income among the rich has reduced that ratio to only about 82%. That could mean hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenues. The payroll tax is highly regressive. Those earning up to $176,100 this year pay the full tax of 12.4% on wage earnings (half deducted directly from their paychecks and half paid by their employers). Those earning more than that sum in wages pay nothing on the excess. To put it in perspective, the payroll tax bite on someone earning $500,000 in wages this year would pay not 12.4% in payroll tax (counting both halves of the levy), but about 4.4%. Eliminating the cap on wages, according to the Social Security actuaries, would eliminate half to three-quarters of the expected shortfall in revenues over the next 75 years, depending on whether benefits were raised for the highest earners. Taxing investment income — the source of at least half the income collected by the wealthiest Americans — at the 12.4% level rather than leaving it entirely untaxed for Social Security would reduce the shortfall by an additional 38%. Combining these two options would eliminate the entire shortfall. Social Security has already been hobbled by the Trump administration, Trump's promises notwithstanding. Elon Musk's DOGE vandals ran roughshod through the program, cutting staff and closing field offices, and generally instilling fears among workers and retirees that the program might not be around long enough to serve them. In moral terms, that's a crime. Those are the choices facing America: Cutting benefits is a dagger pointed directly at the neediest Americans. Social Security benefits account for 50% or more of the income nearly 42% of all beneficiaries, and 90% or more of the income of nearly 15% of beneficiaries. The wealthiest Americans, on the other hand, have been coasting along without paying their fair share of the program. Could the equities be any clearer than that?
