The most common question about our regulation coverage is whether we take a position on whether more or less AI regulation is desirable, given how politically charged the topic has become.
Why readers want to know this
Regulation coverage is unusually susceptible to being read through a reader's own prior political lens, and readers reasonably want to know whether our reporting reflects a house position or genuinely neutral coverage of what's actually happening.
Our actual approach
Our news coverage of regulation reports what's actually being proposed, passed, or enforced, and what stakeholders on different sides are arguing, without our own institutional position embedded in the reporting. Opinion pieces taking an explicit position run separately, clearly labeled as opinion.
Why we maintain this separation carefully
Regulation coverage that blends reporting and advocacy without clear labeling risks readers not knowing which parts are fact and which are argument, a distinction we think matters especially on contested policy topics.
Why we think this separation is worth the discipline it requires
We'd rather be a source readers trust for straight information on AI regulation regardless of their own views, and maintaining that requires real discipline about keeping news and opinion distinctly separate.