Our practices for producing commentary have shifted meaningfully, and the specific changes are worth naming.
We became more selective about what warrants commentary
Early on, we commented on a broader range of developments than we're now comfortable with. We've become more selective, reserving commentary for developments where we genuinely have something substantive to add.
We got more comfortable publishing later, or not at all
We're now more willing to skip commentary on a fast-moving story entirely, or publish well after the initial news cycle, rather than forcing a quick take we don't fully stand behind.
We started revisiting our own past commentary more systematically
We try harder now to check whether past commentary held up over time, and we're more willing to publicly note when it didn't.
Why this evolution matters
We think commentary sections that comment on everything eventually say less of genuine substance, and we'd rather be more selective and more accountable for what we do publish.