Every article on clayny.news is published under my name because I am the person answerable for it. I decide what this site covers, I review what it publishes, and when it gets something wrong, that is mine to correct.
My name is Matthew Broudy. I live in Croton-on-Hudson, New York, where I run croton.news, a local news site covering my own village. I’m a hobbyist developer interested in finding practical ways to use AI for social good, and I built clayny.news and clayny.forum as a free service for the Clay community. Right now, Croton and Clay are the only two communities I’m actively working on.
Part of what drew me to Clay is that local decisions here connect to some very important national issues. Micron and the development surrounding it involve questions about land use, infrastructure, housing, public spending, jobs, environmental impacts, and how a community manages rapid growth. Those decisions happen through town boards and planning documents, but they are also part of a much larger national story. I’d like clayny.news to help residents follow the local layer: what is being proposed, who is making the decisions, and how the public can participate.
I want to be straightforward about this: I am not a Clay resident, and I don’t think I should decide by myself what matters most to this community. I want community feedback to shape the coverage and the way the project operates — if you think we’re covering the wrong things, or covering the right things the wrong way, tell me.
I’m also looking for someone in Clay who might be interested in serving as an editor. I would be very open to passing editorial control to a local person who understands the community and wants to make the site useful and trustworthy. If that could be you, please get in touch.
clayny.news is an AI-assisted newsroom, and I want to be precise about what that does and does not change. AI systems draft articles from the public record — official meeting minutes, agendas and filed documents. They are tools. They are disclosed on every article, and the pipeline that produced each article is described on how we work.
What they are not is authors. A byline is a statement about who is accountable, and software cannot be accountable. So the byline is mine:
Automated coverage passes a verification gate before it can publish — quotations must be verbatim from the official minutes, and names and dollar figures must appear in a source document. A draft that fails is not published. That check is described in full on how we work, and its limits are stated there too: automated checking is not the same as a human reading every line.
If you are named in something we published and you want to respond, correct the record, or add context, I want to hear from you and I will publish your response. That applies whether you are an elected official, an applicant before a board, or a resident who spoke at a meeting. Use the contact page and name the article — corrections do not require a reason and I do not argue about them.