The most common question about our AI company coverage is whether companies can influence what we write about them, given how much of our sourcing necessarily comes through company channels.
Why this concern is legitimate
Much of our company coverage depends on cooperation from the companies themselves - interviews, data, access - which creates a real structural incentive to write favorably in exchange for continued access.
Our actual policy
We don't grant companies review or approval over coverage before publication, and we've had companies decline future cooperation after coverage they didn't like. We treat that as an acceptable cost rather than a reason to soften future reporting.
Why we think this policy matters more than it might seem
A publication that quietly adjusts coverage to preserve access loses the thing that makes its coverage worth reading in the first place, even if the loss isn't visible in any single piece.
Why we're stating this explicitly
We'd rather readers know the actual policy than assume good faith without evidence, especially on a beat where access genuinely matters to reporting quality.