Editorial Comment

Despite significant media interest, there have been suggestions—unsurprisingly—from the institution involved that this site should not be covered by the press, on the grounds that it represents individuals “leveraging the media” to make a statement.

That framing is worth addressing directly.

The right to speak publicly about one’s lived experience is a core First Amendment protection. Individuals have always used the press to surface issues that internal systems either failed to address or actively suppressed. That is not an abuse of media; it is precisely why a free press exists.

Large financial institutions, including Citi and its senior executives, regularly use the press to shape public perception. Earnings calls, selective briefings, off-the-record context, reputation management, and strategic leaks are not anomalies; they are standard corporate practice. No one questions the legitimacy of those efforts.

What’s more, powerful corporations have additional levers when their coverage gets too hot—legal threats, defamation claims, and pressure to pull ad funding. These dynamics are well documented and can have a chilling effect on reporting. That reality is precisely why independent journalism, and the protection of individual speech, matter.

This site exists to give voice to individuals who do not have comparable power, platforms, or institutional backing.

It’s also worth noting what we are not doing.

We are exercising restraint. We are moderating submissions. We are not publishing everything we know, everything we witnessed, or every story that has been shared privately with us—despite the fact that some of those accounts are firsthand, corroborated, and deeply troubling. We could, if we chose to, publish dozens of additional stories tied to specific incidents and senior leaders. In fact, we have collectively received a dozen emails from former colleagues asking why we don’t. We are choosing not to.

That decision is intentional.

This site is not about sensationalism, retaliation, or public shaming. It is about documenting patterns, surfacing systemic issues, and creating space for people who were silenced to speak—often at significant personal and professional cost.

We are not here to ruin people’s reputation or livelihood, despite the fact that many of the people contributing to this site believe our own careers and reputations were damaged—or ended—without any consideration at all.

We choose transparency over silence, and restraint over escalation. We assure you that “others” did not make the same choice when the balance of power was in their favor.

P.S. Yes, it was one of our mom’s who read stories aloud at Bible Study and had her lady-friends write posts. We love it and hope more tough grandma’s show up to lend their support. No surprise we have strong feelings that women make the world go ’round.