The tech stories we envied most in 2025

If there is one undeniable truth about journalism, it’s that no publication does it all. We pride ourselves on covering Africa’s technology ecosystem with unmatched rigour. Still, every so often, we come across incredible work that leaves us with only one thought: “Damn, I wish we had made that.”

Instead of letting that envy stew in our Slack channel, we’re borrowing a leaf from the originators of what to do with such envy. Welcome to the inaugural Jealousy List. This is a curated confession of the work we didn’t produce this year but wish we did: A collection of the articles, visual investigations, and documentaries from across the global media landscape that stopped us in our tracks.

We asked our reporters, writers, and editors to share one story they read/watched/listened to this year that they wish they’d written/produced/been a part of making.

Here’s what they said:

This article is on my jealousy list because it could have easily been a high-impact story for Digital Nomads, the weekend column I write for . I’ve been looking to explore how diaspora folks live in the Asian parts of the world; I’m curious about North Korea in particular—its well-earned reputation for isolationism, and how foreigners adjust there.

It would have been useful if the story touched a bit on what life for Monica—beyond growing up—was like there, at least to the extent it could. But I like the pacing, the narrative setting, and the overall elegance. I’ve borrowed the journalist, Sheriff Bojang Jr’s style in some of my work since then. Yet, more could have been done with such an interesting, unique subject.

This article tells the story of a supposed AI startup that sold the dream of AI-assembled apps when it was mostly just run on human labour and outsourcers despite raising $445m from Microsoft and other investors. I wish I had written it because the article is well-detailed and tells the full story of the company’s collapse. Even though it’s not breaking news, it does a good job of tying old and new information together in an engaging way because it is well-sourced.

The first thing that grabbed my attention was the aspect ratio. They went with something close to 2.39:1 instead of the usual 16:9 you’d expect on YouTube. And honestly, that alone said a lot about how intentional the production was.

The video introduces the concept of tipping points in technological evolution, major shifts that tend to appear in 80-year intervals and go on to shape the world for about 25 years. But what’s wild is that 2025 doesn’t have one tipping point, but three. All happening at once.

Now, here’s where the aspect ratio becomes genius. It can be cleanly divided into three equal squares. Visually, it’s freakishly satisfying, but more importantly, it lets them show the three tipping points side-by-side and carry that theme all through the story. It’s such a subtle but powerful creative choice. The storyteller and creative director in me had a great time watching this. And honestly? I’d love to tell stories with this level of intentionality and creativity, too.

Say what you will about people who take horoscopes and zodiac signs seriously (a sentiment rightly captured in the first paragraph of the article), I found it interesting that this article takes what is an inexact science and tries to make it less so. But that’s not why it’s on my jealousy list. It is on my list because of its format. What a time it’d be when and if we’re able to unlock this kind of design thinking and execution in our reporting here at !

My writing career often extends into the literary world, and there, we talk sometimes about form mirroring content; how the way an essay or story or poem is presented can communicate as much or more than its words, and I appreciate it deeply when newsrooms employ this kind of thinking. It takes news and journalism from something stuffy and straitjacketed to something interactive, deeply engaging, and memorable.

There is a running joke in the newsroom that I am obsessed with Bloomberg, so it’s no surprise that a Bloomberg article was my favourite this year. This piece on Luke Farritor, a 24-year-old coder who worked for the now-troubled, Elon Musk-controlled Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), was a riveting profile of how a wunderkind with no government experience suddenly found himself wielding enormous influence over which agencies were gutted and which survived. It was a reminder that power—who holds it and how it’s used—is just as important to follow as technology itself.

This is the story of a man who everyone thought committed a crime, only for the actual criminal to call and say the accused man stole his name. It’s a wild story, but if you are like me, who loves wild, long, meandering, and complicated storytelling, this will make your day.

Maybe it’s because I’m fascinated by how AI works and incredibly nosy about how other people use AI (don’t quote me), but this story from Wired really caught my attention in a “Why didn’t I think of conducting this experiment” kind of way. 

It seems whimsical at first, but it is deeply revealing of how our society lives with technological advancements. I’m grateful for the open-mindedness of the participants, and I would give anything to have witnessed it first-hand and written my observation. Give it a whirl; you’ll see why I enjoyed it, and the reason it’s on my jealousy list. 

A generally upsetting story, but I like it because it carries a lot of empathy, and it genuinely shows how interactive technology is with our everyday lives. I only use AI for work and arranging my thoughts into a straight line, but I am particularly fascinated by how a tool that came out less than a decade ago has integrated itself into our everyday lives, and how close we are to achieving Neo and Trinity in the next 20 years.

This story, a follow-up to an earlier investigation, amazed me because of its in-depth investigative and strong public-interest angle. Imagine how something as ordinary as normal devices and ad data can create a hidden surveillance pipeline capable of tracking soldiers, intelligence personnel, nuclear storage sites, and other sensitive locations. It’s a story I wish I had written, not just for holding power accountable, but for its potential to spark public discourse and drive real public interest impact.

What made me admire the story most was its blend of tech, national security/intelligence, and investigative reporting in a way that feels both revealing and consequential. The reporters followed the data trail across borders and through obscure ad-tech brokers, uncovering how location data from devices and apps ends up in the hands of data companies that may misuse it.

A really long feature piece, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading this story. It was thorough in its exploration of the subject, so much so that if I had not known about MrBeast before reading the article, I would not have done further research after I was done reading. It answered most questions I had as a reader about who the subject was, why and how he did what he did, and why I should even care about him in the first place.

Another thing that stood out to me was how the writer did not assume. MrBeast is already very popular. It’s easy to assume that there are details that did not need to be included, because the average person would be privy to those details. The writer did no such thing. After reading, I was inspired to write better feature stories with more depth. It also inspired me to write this analysis piece.

I have read a lot about AI and electric cars in 2025. The conversations swing between excitement and fear: some people talk about breakthroughs that could change everything, others warn about environmental damage and the pressure on global power systems. But there is another side of the conversation that rarely gets told. It is the story of the communities feeding the world’s tech revolution.

Places like the Democratic Republic of Congo hold the resources that power the chips driving this revolution. And while the tech world celebrates progress, the communities supplying these minerals are living through crises that grow deeper each year. That is why this Reuters investigation caught my attention. It shows how minerals from one mine in eastern Congo feed the global tech supply chain while also sustaining rebel groups and fuelling long-running conflict.

This is the story I wish I had worked on. I would have wanted to meet the miners, both small-scale workers and those in larger operations. I would have wanted to hear what they gain, what they lose, and how they feel watching the world benefit from something that costs them so much.

The article is over five months old, yet I have read it three or four times because it speaks directly to the lived tension we as writers/journalists navigate daily. It moves beyond the simplistic “AI is good/bad” debate to document the personal calculus of professionals who must engage with these tools at work, yet deliberately reject them in their creative and intellectual sanctuaries. That distinction between the commodified output and the sacred process of thinking, writing, and creating is one I feel profoundly/personally. Saner (the author) validates a silent resistance many of us practice, protecting the human core of our craft even as we operate within a transforming industry.

At its heart, technology is meant to make life easier; however, when it turns on us, the result is a chilling, cruel twist of fate. Adam Raine was a 16-year-old navigating the struggles of adolescence. He turned to ChatGPT for support; instead, he found a suicide companion.

His mother found his body.

This piece stood out to me as it honours Adam—a son, brother, and friend—while exposing the devastating cost of technological advancement without regulation. Additionally, the way the article was crafted stood out to me. For example, the closing paragraphs were written in a partly chilling format.

The goal of the piece is simple but vital: to ensure there are no more tragedies like Adam’s, and that is an honourable task.

I enjoyed its systematic and data storytelling, which was done really well without the numbers being boring. I might also be biased by the fact that it explored our shifts in human behaviour over time, which is a concept I am drawn to. This piece illustrates how technology has revolutionised food delivery and our engagement with it over the last few years. It’s also on my jealousy list because of Osarumen, the author’s thoroughness, which involved nine months of research and over 100 interviews.