What We Skipped: A new periodic newsletter explaining our editorial decision-making

Readers often assume that if a publication is quiet on a big story, it either missed it or doesn’t care. Usually, neither is true.

What We Skipped is our regular log of the stories Urgent Matter chose not to run, documenting the time and effort that go into reporting a story—work that often remains invisible to readers, especially when a piece never publishes.

In a fast news cycle, journalists start their days by reading competitors and evaluating what others have published, with the goal of expanding existing coverage by breaking new details or offering a new angle. At a minimum, they try to match what’s already been written.

This newsletter links to those stories where we put in work, but ultimately decided not to publish. It is not a place for potential scoops or long-term investigations.

We believe this record has value because it offers insight into a standard journalistic practice that is rarely public. As this log grows, patterns may emerge—showing how the choice to stay silent can be as meaningful as the stories we do run.

Decisions not to publish can happen for many reasons. A story may hinge on a court case in a foreign jurisdiction we’re still learning to navigate. It may simply not be consequential enough for our readers. Or it may already be so thoroughly covered elsewhere that there is nothing substantive for us to add.

At the very least, we hope this newsletter prevents readers from assuming that silence—at Urgent Matter or any other publication—reflects disinterest or oversight, rather than judgment.

This newsletter is not an assessment of the importance of the stories linked here. It is a record of editorial judgment at a given moment—what we are watching, what we are waiting on, and what we chose not to publish at that time. When filings become available or facts change, we may revisit them.