Commentary

Stephen A. Smith fired back at the National Assn. of Black Journalists on Monday, calling its decision to give him a “Thumbs Down” award, because of his consistent criticism of Black female politicians, a political and “personal hit job.”

In a 44-minute address on his YouTube channel, the outspoken sports commentator said that while he was “far from perfect and … will always try to do better on behalf of my community and for the journalism community and beyond, that does not negate the bulls— that the NABJ did.”

He added, “I’ve received a lot of insults in my day, but that might be the lowest.”

Smith said the award, which was given Saturday at the organization’s gala, had nothing to do with journalism, attributing the dishonor to board members unhappy with his political opinions. “They did not engage in journalism when it came to critiquing me,” he said.

“People are scared,” he added, calling himself a registered independent. “See, I talk too much and I don’t speak glowingly enough about the Democratic party.” He called out NABJ President Errin Haines, who is editor-at-large for the nonprofit news outlet the 19th, saying she and other board members did not reach out.

“What you did to me was beneath the organization,” Smith said.

He said he invited Haines to discuss the award on the air but she declined, saying she would prefer a private conversation off the air.

The NABJ pushed back on Smith‘s account of the conversation. “President Haines welcomed the opportunity to speak with Mr. Smith and proposed that they begin with a private conversation focused on listening, accountability and meaningful dialogue, with the opportunity for public engagement to follow,” it said Monday in a statement. “At no point did President Haines decline a conversation with Mr. Smith or rule out a future public conversation.”

Other recipients of the “Thumbs Down” award included Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission; DuJuan McCoy, Circle City Broadcasting president and chief executive; CBS News and the Washington Post.

The statement continued: “As President Haines emphasized in her remarks Saturday night, the purpose of the Thumbs Down Award is not permanent condemnation or criticism for criticism’s sake. Accountability should create an opportunity for reflection, dialogue and progress. NABJ remains open to meaningful engagement with any of this year’s recipients and will continue fulfilling its responsibility to advocate for Black journalists, fair and accurate coverage of Black communities, and a strong and independent press.”

In its presentation of the award, the NABJ said Smith “has established a recurring public pattern of disparaging commentary directed at prominent Black women across politics, sports and media.”

The statement continued, “Such commentary reinforces harmful narratives, undermines the fair and respectful representation of Black women in public discourse and stands in direct conflict with NABJ’s longstanding commitment to accurate, responsible and inclusive portrayals of Black communities.”

Smith then took to social media vowing he would strike back: “This is the epitome of Christmas arriving early. The NABJ wants to call folks out, fine! You had your turn, now mine is coming. And make no mistake…..,I’m coming,” he wrote.

Smith has been increasingly vocal about his politics as he hints at a possible presidential run. His statements, bombastic delivery and occasional praise for President Trump have come under fire in Black media and with celebrities. He accused Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas last September of using “street verbiage” in her frequent criticisms of Trump. He also has been critical of former First Lady Michelle Obama, former Vice President Kamala Harris, tennis star Serena Williams and others.

Smith defended those remarks Monday, saying he felt he was being fair and was supportive of the women. He declared that supporting Black women always has been a priority in his life.

“Everything I am, everything that I have achieved, everything that has lifted me up in my life has been associated with Black women. They have been my strength, my source of inspiration and so much more my entire life,” he said.

He added that he would not have been targeted by the Black media if he made the same sort of comments about conservative figures.

During his speech, he noted how the “Thumbs Down” award marked a reversal of NABJ’s previous embrace of him and his ESPN show “First Take,” when it hosted live broadcasts of the program during its 2024 and 2025 conventions. Smith also implied that instead of being hammered by the NABJ, he should be celebrated because he is about to be inducted into the Broadcasting+Cable Hall of Fame.

The NABJ statement further outlined the history of the “Thumbs Down” award, saying it has been handed out 44 times since it was first presented in 1989. The designation holds “individuals and institutions across the media landscape accountable when their reporting, commentary or practices have conflicted with the organization’s mission and values. Recipients over the years have included Black and non-Black individuals and institutions. NABJ calls balls and strikes based on the conduct and issues before us, not the identity of the recipient.”

Despite his anger, Smith told listeners he had no ill will toward the organization. “Please continue to support the NABJ,” he said.

Stephen A. Smith received the equivalent of a failing grade Saturday from the National Assn. of Black Journalists, which blasted his consistent takedowns of Black female politicians.

Predictably, the outspoken sports pundit, who also weighs in with sharp takes on politics and popular culture, is not pleased with the assessment and is planning a fiery response: “Now y’all started something.”

The organization at its annual convention on Saturday presented the ESPN “First Take” host with its annual “Thumbs Down” award, saying he has “established a recurring public pattern of disparaging commentary directed at prominent Black women across politics, sports and media.”

The statement continued, “Such commentary reinforces harmful narratives, undermines the fair and respectful representation of Black women in public discourse and stands in direct conflict with NABJ’s longstanding commitment to accurate, responsible and inclusive portrayals of Black communities.”

The ESPN “First Take” commentator lashed back in an X post: “This is the epitome of Christmas arriving early. The @NABJ wants to call folks out, fine! You had your turn, now mine is coming. And make no mistake…..,I’m coming. Let’s see who REALLY deserves a Thumbs Down award when it comes to the Black Community, after I say my peace! Remember …you asked for it. I’ve shut my mouth for years. Now y’all started something.”

The clash signifies a significant break in the relationship between Smith and the NABJ, which hosted Smith and live broadcasts of his show at its 2024 and 2025 conventions.

The “Thumbs Down” dishonor is the latest backlash against Smith from Black media figures and others.

He accused Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas last September of using “street verbiage” in her frequent criticisms of President Trump. Comedian Kevin Hart quipped during a recent Comedy Central roast that Smith belonged on the “Mt. Rushmore of racism” alongside Kid Rock and Hulk Hogan.

He also has clashed with former MS Now anchor Joy Reid and is engaged in a longstanding feud with NBA star LeBron James.

Although he and Trump have called each other names, he also praised the president, and said last week that Trump-backed Florida gubernatorial candidate Byron Donalds might prompt him to change his political affiliation from Democrat to Republican.

Smith has hinted in past months that he is considering a presidential run.

Others who received a “Thumbs Down” from the NABJ included Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission; DuJuan McCoy, Circle City Broadcasting president and chief executive; CBS; and the Washington Post.

Of all the calculated maneuvers by LeBron James during his eight years with the Lakers, he saved his smartest for last.

He left before the door could hit him in the butt.

He knew the Lakers didn’t want him back, so he skipped out before they had a chance to say goodbye.

He leaked the news alone, before the Lakers could publicly confirm, because he wanted to sell that this was his decision, when it absolutely was not.

This was not his idea. This was not his call. This was the Lakers saying, enough is enough. This was the Lakers saying, we want our team back.

This was arguably the greatest player in basketball getting the message and getting out before they threw him out.

Officially, on Tuesday, James informed the Lakers that he’s going to leave them as a free agent and finish his career elsewhere.

Unofficially, yay!

LeBron is gone, and he left without a fight, and the Lakers couldn’t be luckier.

LeBron is history, and it didn’t cost the Lakers a penny, and now they can breath again.

“LeBron James is one of the greatest athletes in history,” Lakers governor Jeanie Buss said on social media after the news dropped Tuesday morning. “We will always be thankful for his eight years with the Lakers — including the title he led us to in 2020 under the toughest imaginable circumstances and the countless records he broke in purple and gold. We wish him all the best in the future, both on the court and off. He will always be a cherished part of the Lakers family.”

Cherished, but gone, and thank goodness somebody over there had the conviction to let history walk.

Kudos to the new Lakers ownership for resisting every business impulse in their body to keep him while summoning the strength to stare down the most famous basketball player in the world and tell him to hit the road.

Lakers forward LeBron James looks to pass while being defended by Kings guard Daeqwon Plowden during a game in March.

(Ronaldo Bolanos / Los Angeles Times)

They could have been suckered into signing him just to throw him a grand farewell tour. They weren’t.

They could have been fooled by the 15-2 success he enjoyed when playing with Luka Doncic and Austin Reaves during that glorious month this spring. They weren’t.

They could have, as with past Laker regimes, simply been bullied by Rich Paul and his cronies. They weren’t.

They didn’t even make him an offer!

In losing LeBron, the Lakers reclaimed a bit of their soul. In letting LeBron leave, they sent a clear message to everyone who stayed.

This team belongs to Luka. This team belongs to the future. This team again belongs to the Lakers.

“Truly a honor to wear the (purple and gold),” James posted on social media. “Hope I made a few proud during my stint.”

He made many proud. He made the Lakers proud. He led them to their only championship in the last 16 years, he became the NBA’s all-time leading scorer, and, in his 23rd season, he set all sorts of records for longevity.

Lakers forward LeBron James (23) and his son Bronny (9) on the court together during a playoff game against the Rockets in April.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

In his final glorious act this spring, at age 41, he dragged a shorthanded Lakers team into the second round of the playoffs. His widely acclaimed effort against the Houston Rockets proved he could still play. He was still among the top 20 players in the league.

But, goodness, he drove the Lakers crazy.

His eight-year tenure was filled with quiet demands for roster changes amid veiled threats to leave. The Lakers were so afraid of losing him or displeasing Paul and all of his other star clients that they constantly, sometimes embarrassingly, bowed to the King.

In doing everything from acquiring Russell Westbrook to drafting James’ son, Bronny, the Lakers contorted themselves to please their leader.

And for what? Outside of that bubble title in 2020, James never led the Lakers to much of anything. Despite setting some of his records in front of them, he never connected with Lakers fans, perhaps because of the continuous passive-aggressive mind games he played with management.

Here’s guessing he wanted to stay in Los Angeles, and would have eventually accepted a massive pay cut from last year’s $52.6 million. Here’s guessing he would have chosen to remain in the town that contains one of his family homes and many of his businesses for a chance to end his career in a Laker uniform with a farewell celebration that matched the royal ones given the likes of Kobe Bryant and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

But the Lakers never gave him that choice. As it turns out, even 43,440 points were not enough to endear him to an organization that still prefers to call itself the Lakers and not the LeBrons. While he seemed invincible, LeBron was not indisposable, and now he can take his act to Golden State or Cleveland or somewhere else willing to kiss the ring.

Give him credit, though, for pulling one last move.

LeBron leaked his announcement one day after son Bronny’s $2.3 million contract became fully guaranteed.

Of course he did.

Cameron Brink said she’d appreciate some grace. She really would.

Sparks fans should give her some, because where else is she going to get it?

Certainly not from WNBA refs. Not from opponents with more to play for than ever. Certainly not from the game itself; basketball moves fast, and a bummer can become a bust in a blink.

But Brink, 24, is not on the brink of bust territory, no. Block that thought. Technically, it’s Year 3, but after a torn ACL derailed her as a rookie two summers ago, it’s practically like Year 2 for the former Stanford star. And by design, the WNBA is testing her confidence, her decision-making and her patience as she tries to reestablish herself as one of the WNBA’s best young players.

So, grace.

The recognizable 6-foot-4 forward — she’s the long-blond-haired hooper in the New Balance ads — was the No. 2 overall pick in 2024.

Now she’s her team’s No. 3 option in the post. She’s coming off the bench behind Nneka Ogwumike and Dearica Hamby for the Sparks, who are a modest 6-6 after wins this week over the expansion Portland Fire and the struggling Seattle Storm.

Against the Fire, Brink scored two points and picked up four fouls in nine minutes. Then she went to Seattle and had 15 points in 18 minutes but was pulled with more than five minutes left in the fourth quarter after getting her third, fourth and fifth fouls in 86 seconds. (WNBA players get six fouls before being disqualified.)

For the season, Brink has been called for 49 fouls in 208 minutes. A foul about every four minutes!

They’re silly fouls and they’re phantom calls. Egregious and ticky-tack. Costly and common. A real fouled-up buffet. She sets screens that get scrutinized as if by the most vigilant TSA agent. And sometimes, yes, she’s doing the accidental tripping. Other times, the officials are.

Her reputation precedes her, so everyone gets a superstar’s whistle when being defended by Brink. Opponents bake it into their game plans.

That can’t continue.

All that fouling is hindering Brink’s development because it’s robbing her of important in-game reps — which she needs, foremost, to figure out how to stop fouling.

Sparks forward Cameron Brink, left, blocks the shot of the Tempo’s Laura Juskaite during a game last month.

(Jeff Lewis / Associated Press)

“At the pro level,” said Tara VanDerveer, Brink’s coach at Stanford, “every young player always has a lot of work to do. And I saw her make a three. I see her block shots. She rebounds, she can handle the ball, she’s unselfish, she’s a terrific talent. But there’s always things players need to work on.”

We know what Brink’s thing is.

“She has to be disciplined,” VanDerveer said. “And if you want something so badly, if you want to be an All-Star someday or make the Olympic team, you’ve got to be dependable … and I think anyone can change, if it’s behavior they recognize is not in their best interests or not in their team’s best interests. It’s hard, but it’s something I think people can do.

“That’s what Cam is working on.”

And, VanDerveer added, “I’m really so excited that Nneka is there, because she will give her such great guidance and mentorship.”

And grace. Brink is getting that from Ogwumike — also a former Stanford star, the Sparks legend returned to L.A. this season after two seasons in Seattle — and her other teammates.

“I just do my best to lead by example,” Ogwumike, 35, said. “But then also let [Brink] know that she’s very capable, that she’s more than capable, which is exactly why she’s here with us and it’s exactly why we need her on this team.”

Sparks forward Cameron Brink, wearing a facemask, controls the ball while defended by Sun forward Raegan Beers.

(Joe Buglewicz / Getty Images)

But how long will Brink get grace from the Sparks in the what-have-you-done-for-me-lately business of basketball?

The foul trouble tells us why a win-now team wouldn’t trust her, why the Sparks would give meaningful minutes to two veteran post players ahead of her. Why they wouldn’t prioritize Brink’s development alongside winning as they strive to snap a previously unthinkable five-year playoff drought.

And what about fans? How patient will you all be with a player who was drafted immediately after Caitlin Clark and five spots in front of Angel Reese?

These days, that might depend on what the parlay calls for.

Or, preferably, whether you remember Brink’s first 15 WNBA games. All starts, all signs pointing to stardom. She showed up in 2024 throwing lavish block parties. Her 2.3 blocks per game were message-sending spikes, like what Lisa Leslie used to enthrall Sparks crowds with.

From the jump, she had guys coming to games at Crypto.com Arena wearing her No. 22 jersey and little girls arriving in groups with No. 22 painted on their cheeks and “I love Cam Brink” signs in hand.

And then the torn ACL cost her 25 games of her rookie season and another 25 last season, plus her spot on the United States’ Olympic 3×3 women’s basketball team in Paris in 2024.

She had to start over. Lost a lot of ground. But you see that masked woman stuck on the Sparks’ bench for all but 17 minutes per game?

You can’t miss her. She’s looking uncomfortable in protective facial gear that either hinders her breathing or her peripheral vision, her only options to protect the torn septum she suffered in a victory over the Las Vegas Aces last month.

She’s the one with the 6-8 wingspan who’s averaging 9.2 points, 4.3 rebounds and 1.5 blocks while shooting 52.1% from the field in her limited minutes.

She’s still Cameron Brink. Between fouls, she’s fluid and fast and covers more of the court than almost anyone in the WNBA, able to leap from defending guards to centers in a single bound.

“It’s just looking at every day as a new opportunity to learn and grow and not getting too bogged down when things don’t go exactly as you planned,” Brink told me. “Because more times than not, things are not going to go how you want them to. And that’s life. So I just want to be able to put my best effort out there every single night.

She knows what the Sparks need from her: “To perform, just come on the floor and compete.”

To prove she can stay on the floor to compete.

Spencer Pratt had a few things going for him when he launched an insurgent campaign to become Los Angeles’ next mayor.

He had a heart-tugging origin story that saw him transform from a has-been television star into one of the thousands of residents who lost their home in last year’s Palisades fire. He faced an unpopular incumbent in Mayor Karen Bass. He was powered by a vigorous social media presence and an angry electorate thirsty for change.

He was able to capitalize on those conditions to outraise his main rivals, Bass and city council member Nithya Raman, and transform his candidacy from an afterthought into a national story. Running as a Republican in a super-blue city like L.A. put him at an automatic disadvantage — one that might have been extremely difficult to overcome in the end. But the Pratt posse started to feel like a bona fide movement the more it thundered on, the type of revolt against the old guard that in previous eras led to the passage of Proposition 13 and the recall of Gov. Gray Davis — the type of movements that forever alter California politics.

Pratt, however, faced an apparently insurmountable obstacle.

Pratt.

With almost all votes counted, he’s going to finish in third place with about 26% of the electorate — the same slice Donald Trump received in 2024 — while Bass and Raman proceed to face each other in November. Political strategists will teach his failed attempt to their clients as a cautionary tale of how a candidate blew every advantage they had when they couldn’t afford to lose one.

Pratt’s first mistake was thinking that Angelenos wanted a campaign of wanton rage. Yes, many residents are furious at the state of the city. Yes, they want change. Yes, the angry Angeleno archetype is a real phenomenon that flares up in local elections to smack back at the powers that be.

But L.A. is not MAGAlandia — running from the right on apocalyptic, whiny messaging will only get you the few Republicans that remain in the city and some disaffected liberals. Pratt didn’t run as a MAGA candidate, but it’s hard to say he didn’t run like one — even as he swore he was running for everyone.

He took every opportunity to ridicule progressives in a city where four democratic socialists sit on the city council, one of them — Raman — has a good chance of becoming the next mayor, and five of the six candidates endorsed by the local chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America either won outright or are moving on to the general election.

Instead of making overtures to that side of the populist coin, Pratt recorded videos obsessing over Bass’ trip to communist Cuba in the 1970s, a well-known fact he treated as revelatory and which made Pratt sound like he was stuck in a John Birch Society meeting circa 1965. His dismissal of Raman as “stupid” and the mayor as “Basura” — trash — came off as facile juvenilia at a time when we already have the Big Juvenile Delinquent running things in the White House. Ridiculing homeless people as “zombies,” “vagrants” and “bums” only riled up the worst elements of the city and turned off anyone with a heart.

Keith Casey of Casey’s Family BBQ serves up food as L.A. mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt hosts a campaign “block party” event on 10th Avenue in Los Angeles on May 20.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Pratt undoubtedly attracted votes from a good amount of non-MAGA people fed up with various problems afflicting L.A. But many of the supporters who brayed the loudest on his behalf were the same people already doing daily propaganda on social media for a failed, hate-filled president and his baleful cronies.

Pratt acted like he believed the AI-generated videos created by fans that cast him as a comic-book hero was real life instead of forgetting that he was a novice trying to take on two experienced politicians. While Bass and Raman trekked across the city during the primary, Pratt limited his public appearances mostly to the Westside and random encounters with supporters he posted on social media. The few times he appeared outside those safe spaces came off as safari expeditions in a mysterious city the 42-year-old lifelong Angeleno obviously didn’t know.

Take the South L.A. block party he hosted last month. Instead of having something thoughtful to say about the state of Black L.A. or how its political leaders continue to neglect the region, all Pratt seemed to take away from that afternoon was that it was in the territory of the Rollin’ 60s Neighborhood Crips, a detail he shared ad nauseum on social media and to the press — as if kicking it with gang members would fix L.A. or gain him any votes or grant some kind of street cred.

That self-centered cluelessness ended up torpedoing Pratt’s best campaign moment. In the one debate he participated in, Pratt put Bass on the defensive, turned Raman into a tongue-tied mess, kept his answers sharp and relatable, and even earned the praise of the moderators. He should’ve demanded more gatherings like that to flex his mastery of television cameras, make his case to as many Angelenos as possible and showcase the self-proclaimed Pratt Daddy as someone willing to take on hard questions anytime, anyplace, from anyone.

Instead, Pratt declined an invite to their only other scheduled debate and never bothered with the forums civic groups across the city held in order for their members to hear from candidates. Instead, Pratt flew out to New York the week before election day to appear on Fox News.

Sticking to largely sycophantic media who lobbed softball questions hardened his ceiling. Pratt needed to proselytize — not preach to the choir.

The thing is, Pratt made some strong points about the inefficiencies of L.A.’s political status quo and the outrage that is having tens of thousands of people live on our streets. And there’s something appealing about an outsider crashing City Hall, which is way too beholden to sclerotic lifers who can be as clueless about what the city needs as Pratt turned out to be.

Instead, he platformed people who saw L.A. as a hellhole — or “shithole,” as Trump likes to call certain places. It was hard to see what some of Pratt’s loudest and most strident supporters actually thought was worth preserving in the city — but not why they felt he was their man.

In the wake of his loss, Pratt sure hasn’t push back against unfounded claims by too many of his followers and Trump, Vice President JD Vance and House Speaker Mike Johnson that Democrats somehow rigged the election against him. Quite the contrary, Pratt has insinuated on social media that they’re onto something.

That last point reinforces the ultimate reason Pratt could never become L.A.’s next mayor: He really doesn’t believe in L.A.

Angelenos don’t mind haters — it’s the type of city that frustrates residents even on its best days. But one insult residents won’t brook is someone who doesn’t have confidence in better days ahead for the city no matter how dire things may be.

Angelenos can spot a phony from far away — and Spencer, you’re turning out to be phonier than the fake drama on any of the television shows you ever appeared in.

You vowed to leave L.A. if you didn’t win the race for mayor. Maybe you should stay and try to righteously pressure Bass and Raman to make much needed changes. If you do, urge your followers to do the same instead of them pouting and sitting out the mayor’s race.

But if you don’t, well, maybe you never really loved L.A. as much as the City of Angels, warts and all, deserves. And you kind of need to really love L.A. to really fix what ails it.

Step up, or step outta town.

Ron, a West L.A. resident, thinks he knows why former reality TV star and political newcomer Spencer Pratt won so much support in his run for mayor.

People are frustrated, frightened and angry about homelessness “and the crime associated with it,” Ron said in an email. He added that he voted for Mayor Karen Bass, but “almost everything Pratt said about the homeless resonated with me. … The homeless run wild here, without consequence.”

“Many of us support him not because we think he’s perfect,” said Kathy, “but because we are deeply dissatisfied with the direction of Los Angeles and feel that traditional politicians have not delivered the results we were promised.”

Bob, “a left-leaning Palisades resident,” said the issue is not Pratt’s lack of credentials, but the failures of incumbents. “There was a columnist … who documented in depth the situation at MacArthur Park,” Bob wrote in reference to me. “What was his name and what happened to him? Did he change his tune?”

These are all fair points, and if Pratt holds onto one of the top two spots and makes it to the Nov. 3 general election, or he’s overtaken by late-charging Councilmember Nithya Raman, we’re going to hear a lot more about homelessness in coming months.

So whether we’re looking at a Bass-Raman contest or a Bass-Pratt showdown, here are some random musings, and I’ll begin by responding to Bob’s question about whether I have changed my tune.

Not in the least.

The situation in MacArthur Park — targeted Thursday in a crackdown that involved multiple arrests — has long been a disgrace, and the same is true of many other places I’ve written about for the past quarter of a century. Last month, I visited a Hollywood neighborhood where one frustrated resident hired her housekeeper to document chronic problems related to homelessness, illegal dumping and criminal activity.

Residents have good reason to ask why they haven’t gotten better results after responding to politicians’ pleas for more money over the years.

It’s no surprise that Bass had high unfavorability ratings and why, despite leading in the primary vote count, she’ll fall far short of the 50% needed to avoid a second election phase. I still can’t believe that when I first asked her about the sad state of MacArthur Park, she told me she was fully aware, because she often drove through the area on her way to work.

Then why hadn’t she led the charge to address the problems and return the park to the community?

It shouldn’t take months, let alone years, to take back control of public spaces, and Pratt’s criticism is warranted, no doubt. And my main issue is not the hypocrisy of him saying God wants him to be mayor while calling his opponents demonic entities and villainizing homeless people he intends to shoo away to Seattle. It’s that his “fixes” demonstrate a lack of understanding.

Let me make a confession. From one angle or another, I’ve been writing about the intersection of homelessness, mental illness and addiction for a couple of decades, and I still have a lot to learn.

And on a personal note, I lost my son to a drug overdose. He had a job and wasn’t homeless, but like a lot of people who struggle with depression and other demons, he was resistant to help, and even to the idea that he needed help.

There are a lot more substance users like him, living out of public view, than there are on the street. We notice only those who don’t have the means to pay the rent or the mortgage as housing prices rise. So when Pratt says we don’t have a homelessness problem, but a drug problem, he’s missing a critical component in understanding why L.A. has tens of thousands of unsheltered people.

Pratt said on his website that his “treatment first” approach would direct resources into mental health and drug treatment care, which sounds good except that those responsibilities are primarily under county jurisdiction, not city control.

He and others have attacked harm reduction practices, such as distribution of needles and other paraphernalia. And I have to admit that it seems counterintuitive to enable further drug use. But the idea is to prevent death, engage clients and start a relationship that might lead to transformative care.

The county reports that in 2024, fentanyl-related deaths decreased by 37% and meth-related deaths by 20%. Harm reduction can be “absolutely invaluable,” addiction specialist Rick Rawson told me when I was working in MacArthur Park, but we need much more than that.

“When you have someone who becomes so incapacitated that they can’t stand up,” Rawson said, “to say that you’re just going to provide them with harm reduction and hope they don’t die, I think that falls short of the responsibility we have to each other and to the sickest people.”

I’ll add here that I firmly believe we should intervene more aggressively with people who are gravely ill, or are a threat to themselves or others. I recently profiled two San Diegans who are advocating for use of an existing law to allow for deeper evaluations and longer-term treatment plans for people with chronic drug and mental health issues.

It’s worth noting that drug and alcohol rehab is seldom a quick or surefire remedy. As for mental illness, it took me one year, along with the help of trained professionals, to convince my friend Nathaniel to seek help after he’d spent decades on the street following a diagnosis of schizophrenia.

What I’ve found over the years is that many of those living in tents and cars and alleys and parks are damaged in numerous ways.

I’m less inclined to judge people from a distance after having met a man on Skid Row who said he fell apart after his young daughter drowned. I’ve met women who are victims of domestic abuse or sexual assault. People in the grip of killer drugs like meth or fentanyl don’t think as clearly as we’d like them to, and they repeatedly sabotage their own self-interest.

To see people take over public spaces, openly sell or use drugs, lash out and scare those around them is disturbing and sometimes scary. But to say they choose to live on the street, as Pratt has, is to miss the point, to excuse our own complicity, to overlook historic policy failures, and to choose contempt over compassion.

Homelessness can cause mental illness, and mental illness can cause addiction, and vice versa. One condition alone can be difficult to address, but intertwined maladies further complicate matters.

I recently checked in with a guy I wrote about who had been addicted and homeless in Koreatown, and he said his recovery took more than half a year. He was in residential treatment for a few months, then in intensive outpatient treatment. There are no shortcuts, he said.

I’m not here to defend Bass, or Raman and the rest of the City Council, which shares responsibility for the current state of the city. Limited progress has been made in the last 3½ years, with a marginally lower number of homeless people.

But there’s a long way to go in moving people indoors and restoring a sense of order and public safety. The many needs include smarter enforcement of existing laws, faster development of low-cost interim and permanent housing, better coordination of outreach and follow-up services and more people willing to do all of this work.

Let’s hope that in the coming months we’ll get an honest conversation about what’s working, what isn’t, and how to do better.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

One more day and it’ll all be over. I’m referring to the primary election, of course, and the unremitting campaign ads that have infiltrated every aspect of our being as Californians.

Authentic or paid influencers promoting candidates on TikTok and Instagram. Facebook ads vilifying or praising various measures. Incessant, repetitive TV campaigns that get nastier with every election, yet still manage to feel like an analogue remnant from 1982. The worst? Those sponsored leaflets and postcard mailers that end up as makeshift coasters, mosquito swatters or unread refuse that goes straight from the mailbox into the blue recycle bin.

The king of ad spending is Democratic gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer. He’s behind the most expensive political advertising campaign in the country this year. A former hedge fund manager, Steyer has reportedly spent more than $200 million on his campaign, with a major chunk of that for broadcast TV, cable and radio — 20 times the amount spent by fellow Democrat, former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services and California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra. And Steyer is still polling behind Becerra.

I never thought I’d write this but it’s not always about the money.

Xavier Becerra, front-runner in the race for California governor, speaks before a crowd at UFCW Local 1167 Union Hall.

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

Voters have more resources than ever should they choose to actually research and learn about who and what is poised to shape the future of their city, county and state.

There’s no shortage of broadcast, cable, digital and print reporting about former reality TV personality turned mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt. He uses AI!

The battle between incumbent Karen Bass and her closest Democratic competition, Los Angeles city council member Nithya Raman, dominates local newscasts. And there’s pundits from both sides arguing for and against these choices on every available platform.

Given the amount of information now at voter’s fingertips, we should be the most informed voting populace in the history of ballot casting. But are we?

A new poll by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies that was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times asked 8,578 registered voters across California what sources they rely on to get news and information about election-related issues. The poll, which was conducted online May 19-24 in English and Spanish, found that nearly half of the state’s electorate (47%) said they refer to the official voter information guide that is mailed to voters in advance of each election.

Discovering that a nonpartisan, non-sponsored source of data topped the list is a welcome surprise. Today’s media-verse is so fractured and bifurcated along political lines, I just assumed that confirmation bias would drive most folks toward friendly sources, i.e. what they want to hear.

Not as surprising is that 44% of those polled said they use Google or other search engines to seek out election-related information, and greater than 3 in 10 obtain election-related information from social media (39%). Traditional means of information weren’t far behind search engines. Those polled said they still rely on national or cable TV news (39%), newspapers, online or in print (37%), and local TV news (35%). One in three (33%) get information word-of-mouth from family, friends, neighbors or co-workers.

Gubernatorial candidate and billionaire Tom Steyer, right, meets with supporters at a campaign stop.

(Sara Nevis/For The Times)

“The substantial differences in news sources across generation, education and partisanship suggest that we are a considerable distance from the information environment that dominated most of the 20th century, where local newspapers, network news and local television stations dominated,” said Professor Eric Schickler, co-director of the Institute of Governmental Studies. “This fragmentation means that voters may no longer share a common frame of reference when evaluating candidates and election issues.”

The increasingly splintered ways in which voters seek information, fueled by the rapid changes in technology and media, has kept political campaign strategists on their toes.

“Getting attention is the first barrier, and then once you have that attention, how do you convert that into support?” says Democratic campaign consultant and strategist Brian Brokaw. “You have to create a surround-sound effect in order to persuade the voter to go for your candidate or your issue, and they have to hear from multiple avenues. Voters are innately skeptical of advertising, especially when it’s a very direct sale from a candidate. That’s why you’re seeing the use of more influencers in campaigns, particularly paid influencers, who may or may not be disclosing that they are being paid. That’s been a prominent issue in the governor’s race.”

Age, or generational differences, are another deciding factor in where voters look for more intelligence on issues and candidates. The poll found that two-thirds of voters under the age of 30 (67%) and a majority of those ages 30-39 (52%) use social media such as Facebook, X, Instagram, or TikTok to get their information.

Getting to know a candidate, particularly via social media, isn’t necessarily part of a rigorous, fact finding mission. Laughing at Pratt’s Batman-themed video or Gov. Gavin Newsom’s satirical X posts are more about bonding with the person than unpacking their policies. Real or perceived, discovering a candidate via one’s Instagram feels more organic than seeing them on billboard or TV ad.

“One way that politics has changed is that people are craving authenticity. Someone like [Zohran] Mamdani, was very successful and promoted himself from the back of the pack to mayor of New York City. But what people are seeing doesn’t mean that’s the truth,” warns Republican consultant and campaign strategist Kevin Spillane. “I’ve been involved in politics for 40 years. A lot of people are not how they present themselves. But we still crave authenticity, we want to believe [in someone], we want that connection.”

We’ll soon see who Californians choose to represent them and their concerns — or which candidate waged the best campaign warfare, substantive political arguments be damned. But it may take a minute to count all the votes. California reached a record number of registered voters ahead of Tuesday’s primary election, according to the Secretary of State’s office. Officials say more than 23.1 million Californians are now registered to vote statewide.

West Coasters who want to understand what they’re voting for have infinite resources to turn to, some more useful than others. Sponsored mailers (the aforementioned mosquito swatters) only appealed to 9% of those polled as a useful source of information. But did you really need a poll to tell you that?