The Boston Tea publishes source-grounded accountability reporting on power, money, and public decisions in Boston. We work only from lawfully obtained public records and on-the-record statements, and we link the underlying source wherever we can. Our aim is a fair, careful account of what the evidence shows, not a verdict.
We are careful with language, and we keep four things separate so the reader always knows which is which: what the record establishes as fact, what we draw as a reasonable inference from it, what others allege but the record does not settle, and the unanswered questions that remain open. We never present an allegation as established fact, and we never auto-publish one. Before we publish a serious or reputation-affecting claim about a person or organization, we offer a right of response and carry it, or note that a response was declined or not received. When we get something wrong, we correct it in the open and note what changed.
A public-record review of how affordable-unit commitments in the development pipeline compare with what is ultimately permitted and built.
A read of the multi-year capital plan to see where planned investment concentrates and where spending lags the plan.
A careful, public-record look at whether property violations concentrate among specific owners.
Every claim is grounded in public records, public filings, or on-the-record statements, with links attached.
We separate what the record establishes from what we infer from it, and from what others allege. The reader always knows which is which.
Subjects of accountability reporting are given a fair opportunity to respond before publication, and their response is reflected.
Each piece carries a confidence score and clears editorial and legal-risk review. Careful, non-defamatory language throughout.
We correct the record promptly and visibly when we get something wrong.