How to Remove a The Information Article: A Founder's Guide

The Information's Influence Despite Its Paywall

The Information was founded in 2013 by Jessica Lessin, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, with an explicit focus on the technology industry's professional and investment audience. Its subscription model -- priced significantly above consumer news subscriptions -- ensures that its readership is concentrated among the technology and investment professionals who can most affect a company's trajectory. Partner-level VC investors, senior technology executives, investment bankers who specialize in tech, and journalists from every major tech outlet all subscribe to The Information as a professional necessity.

This readership concentration is what makes a The Information story immediately dangerous for a company even before any secondary coverage appears. When The Information publishes a story about a founder's conduct, a company's culture, or a business problem, the story lands directly in the inboxes and reading queues of the people a startup needs most: investors, potential hires, partners, and acquirers. There is no lag between publication and awareness in this audience -- The Information's subscribers are exactly the people who read it the day it drops.

The secondary amplification accelerates the damage beyond The Information's own subscriber base. Within hours of a significant The Information story, pick-ups typically appear in TechCrunch, Bloomberg, The Verge, Axios, and Business Insider -- each of which adds hundreds of thousands of additional readers and creates an open-access, search-visible version of the narrative. The combination of direct subscriber impact (immediate, audience-specific) and secondary amplification (broad, search-visible, persistent) means a The Information story can define a company's narrative across the entire tech ecosystem within 24 hours.

Types of Damaging Coverage

The Information specializes in accountability journalism about the technology industry, which means it focuses on stories that powerful institutions and individuals would prefer not to see published. Its investigative capacity is significant, and it is known for stories that rely on internal documents, former employee accounts, and sources within organizations that have visibility into private operations.

Founder and executive misconduct stories are among the most damaging categories. When The Information reports on a founder's treatment of employees, financial irregularities, or personal conduct that raises governance concerns, the story reaches every major VC fund that might be in diligence on a current or future funding round. This can halt fundraising immediately, trigger board-level intervention, or create a permanent association between the founder's name and the reported conduct that follows them into subsequent ventures.

Company culture and workplace stories follow a similar pattern. Reports on toxic culture, discrimination, or high attrition create problems for recruiting -- which is particularly acute for technology companies in competitive talent markets. The Information's culture stories attract significant secondary coverage from outlets like Business Insider and Insider, which publish extended follow-up pieces that can generate their own search visibility.

Business model and financial reporting that exposes problems with a company's unit economics, customer metrics, or revenue trajectory can affect both existing investor relationships and the ability to raise future rounds. Unlike consumer publications, The Information's financial reporting is read by people who understand what the numbers mean and who act on that understanding.

Requesting a Correction

The Information has a corrections process and takes factual accuracy seriously as a core element of its brand with subscribers who are sophisticated enough to notice and remember inaccuracies. A correction request that includes specific, documented factual evidence of an error has a realistic chance of producing a published correction or an editor's note appended to the original story. You can reach The Information's editorial team directly to submit documented factual corrections.

The publication is known for its strong editorial independence and aggressive source protection. This means that characterization disputes -- "the story made us look bad" or "the sources were biased former employees" -- are unlikely to produce editorial action. The grounds must be specific factual errors, not interpretation disagreements. If a number was wrong, a timeline was inaccurate, or a specific statement of fact is demonstrably false, those are the grounds worth pursuing. If the coverage is accurate but damaging, a correction request will not succeed.

The correct contact for a correction request is the managing editor or the editor who oversaw the specific piece -- not the reporter, who does not have authority to alter published content. A professional, documented, non-threatening request is significantly more likely to receive a substantive response than an informal complaint or an aggressive demand. RemoveNews.ai generates a professionally structured request and identifies the correct editorial contact at The Information.

Managing Secondary Coverage

For most founders and companies, the secondary coverage generated by a The Information story is as significant a problem as the original article -- often more so, because the secondary articles are not paywalled and appear prominently in search results. A TechCrunch or Bloomberg piece citing The Information's reporting can rank on page one for a company's name for years, reaching investors, potential employees, and customers who would never encounter the original paywalled article.

Each secondary outlet must be approached separately. A correction at The Information does not automatically trigger corrections or updates at TechCrunch or Business Insider. These outlets have their own editorial processes and will only update or correct secondary coverage if presented with specific evidence of factual error -- and only if their own article (not The Information's) contains the error. Secondary articles that accurately paraphrase The Information's (potentially inaccurate) original are in a complicated position that requires careful, outlet-by-outlet outreach.

Mapping the secondary coverage landscape before determining strategy is essential. The number of outlets that picked up a The Information story, the specific claims each outlet made, and which outlets have functioning editorial contacts all affect what is achievable. Some secondary coverage will be addressable through correction requests; some will require suppression through counter-content; some will need to be deprioritized in favor of outlets with greater search visibility impact. The Electronic Frontier Foundation publishes useful guidance on digital rights that can inform how you approach secondary coverage removal, and Google's content removal tools can help de-index specific secondary URLs.

Investor Communications Strategy

The most immediate priority after a damaging The Information story -- before the editorial and suppression work -- is investor communications. Existing investors and investors currently in diligence need to hear from the company before they form their impression of the coverage through the story alone. A proactive, direct communication that acknowledges the article, provides the company's factual position on the coverage, and demonstrates that leadership is aware and responding creates a materially better dynamic than letting investors discover the story independently.

The investor communication should be factual, calm, and specific. It should not attempt to discredit The Information as a publication -- sophisticated investors who subscribe to it will not respond well to that framing. It should focus on specific factual inaccuracies if they exist, provide context that the article lacked, and signal that the company is managing the situation professionally. The communication should not go into detail about legal strategy or editorial outreach in a way that suggests the company is primarily focused on suppression rather than the underlying issue.

For companies in active fundraising, the board should be briefed immediately and should be part of determining the investor communication strategy. Board members who are investors themselves will have views on how the coverage affects the round and can be valuable sources of guidance on how the specific funds you are speaking with are likely to react.

Suppression Strategy

When The Information coverage is accurate and removal is not achievable, suppression of the secondary coverage through high-authority counter-content is the primary strategy for managing search visibility. Unlike removing the original paywalled article (which has limited search impact anyway), the goal is to displace the open-access secondary articles -- the TechCrunch, Bloomberg, and Axios pieces -- from the top of company and founder name search results. A structured suppression strategy targeting the highest-authority secondary outlets is the most effective approach, and a news article removal attorney can advise if specific secondary articles contain actionable defamatory content.

Competing with TechCrunch or Bloomberg in search results requires content placed on platforms with comparable or superior domain authority. This means bylined thought leadership pieces in major business and technology publications, strategic product announcements covered by authoritative outlets, and structured positive coverage that gives search engines high-authority alternatives to rank above the negative secondary articles. For founders specifically, building a robust personal brand presence on LinkedIn, in speaking circuits, and through authored content in authoritative publications creates a persistent counter-narrative in search results.

The suppression timeline depends on the volume and authority of the secondary coverage. A story that generated three secondary articles in mid-tier tech blogs is a different challenge from a story that generated 15 secondary articles in TechCrunch, Bloomberg, Business Insider, and Axios. Realistic timelines range from 3 months (limited secondary coverage, founder with existing public profile) to 18+ months (extensive secondary coverage, founder with minimal prior search presence). Professional management of the suppression effort is almost always necessary at the scale that The Information stories generate. Understanding the cost of removal upfront helps set realistic expectations, and knowing your options when the editor refuses is critical for secondary outlets that don't respond to correction requests.

Getting Professional Help

A The Information story that has generated secondary coverage in major tech outlets is a reputation management challenge that warrants professional support. The combination of investor relations urgency, editorial outreach across multiple outlets, and a sustained suppression campaign across the secondary coverage ecosystem is not manageable through DIY approaches or general PR support alone.

RemoveNews.ai provides a free starting point -- a professionally structured correction or removal request with the correct editorial contact at The Information. For the broader challenge of managing secondary coverage, investor communications, and sustained suppression, Reputation Resolutions has managed technology press coverage for founders and startups since 2013, with experience navigating the specific dynamics of tech media amplification. Engagements are structured on a pay-for-results basis. Call 855-239-5322 to speak with a specialist directly.