Oof. Newspapers for years have documented the damage of raising prices for a diminished product. The only thing I can think of more damaging is to tell the customer an algo set their price using their personal data. I predict the destruction here will be epic.
cc: @dankennedy.net
Pablo is one of the best in the business.
Telling Iranians, basically, "Rise up or we'll poison you" is no different than saying, "The beatings will continue until morale improves." #WhatAreWeDoingHere
From 8:00-8:30 we'll be joined by @hendersonma.bsky.social and @masspolwatch.bsky.social for #TheRundown when we take on the top local issues of the week
Questions or comments for the panel? Text us @ 774-364-8255
#Holden votes down MBTA Communities Act zoning by a vote of 520 against, 257 for.
CC: @totcshow.bsky.social
At Holden Town Meeting to vote for MBTA Communities Act zoning. (Don't get the reference, ask your kids.)
Just a lot of variables here: how hard you hit 'em, how many subs expense or deduct it, are you just chasing a number?, etc.
That said, I think you're right insofar as I feel they bounce between unique and ubiquitous. People will pay for the former, not so much the latter.
Yes, but papers like NYT and WSJ, and perhaps even the Globe, are experts in minimizing sub loss when raising prices. I think the latter is more likely, esp. since they appear to bounce between max reach and max subs, dramatically different content strategies that yield different results.
When USA Today, parent of the ProJo, T&G and many other New England papers, started trying to "chain" subscribers (a k a hiking prices or ending promos), it lost 30% of its digital subs. Ouch!
www.amediaoperator.com/news/usa-tod...
cc: @dankennedy.net
Without Dan we probably would have never gotten this gem in "Sideways."
You may be right. TV news skews heavily older and Fox pretty much has that covered. Others have tried to compete and bounced off.
Frankly, I'm excited about the prospect someone could scoop up the great news talent about to be on the market and start something not tethered to broadcast or cable.
1. Not sure about that. Netflix programs based on its user data. If users want news, it'll give it to them.
2. Perhaps it's not Netflix, but there will be way too much top news talent available for someone not to make a run at it. It won't have the reach at first, but digital outlets can grow quick.
Hate this deal, but 5 years from now this will look totally different. New brands rise when others die. Netflix and others can be big winners if they invest smartly in the talent that's about to become available.
In the short run, certainly horrible. In the long run, different story. The merger will lead to huge staff reductions and price increases for the new company. Meanwhile, Netflix & others can scoop up the talent and continue to grow organically. 5 years from now this will look very different.
All prominent Democrats should be saying loud and clear, "We're keeping track of all these deals and will break them up as soon as we can."
Yet, what we hear is nothing. So, yeah, Democrats are complicit.
The Globe's deep dive on the Assumption "Predator" scheme gone wrong and its lasting consequences:
www.bostonglobe.com/2026/02/24/m...
Sure sounds like the governor is doing her version of Seinfeld's "Good luck with alllll that."
#Worcester #WorcPoli #Holden
Governor Healey on Holden/Worcester court decision
spectrumnews1.com/ma/worcester...
Great job by @adambassofmass.bsky.social to get the scoop on this:
www.masslive.com/centralmass/...
I can see that. I think it plays on multiple levels when people acting in good faith are trying to arrive at a just result. (I acknowledge that it's probably not like this in other parts of the country, but it's my Northeast privilege that allow me to believe in it.)
I think that's true, but I also think given an opportunity juries often find ways to "split the baby." I'm thinking of instances where they opt for lesser-included charges and that sort of thing. Now, is that what the individuals believe or is it to gain consensus? That's the question, I think.
So that was my question. If they were going to split (and give WPD an L), I thought it likely that they "not guilty" the A&B but go the other way on interference.
Back in the '90s this would likely have started a war in the T&G newsroom, but here it is.
Regardless of whether I was editing the story, I would have loudly said to the Page 1 editor, " 'Jury finds Etel guilty' is a bull--it, lazy headline. It should be 'Jury delivers split verdict'." #WordsMatter
My last thought: It is worth noting that if the Worcester police had acted in accordance with the protocols they established AFTER the Eureka Street fiasco, none of this would have ever happened to @etelhaxhiaj.bsky.social. An apology is owed here, but most certainly not to the police.
The reason I thought it would be a split verdict at worst was if the jury blamed both sides. As I've said since the beginning, there's enough evidence to conclude the police were totally unprepared to deal with this professionally, and blame needs to be assessed for that. In that way, it just was.
I don't know. What I wouldn't give to be able to buy any one of the jurors a beer and find out what they were thinking?
This is what I'm sayin'...
And, if the jury did get there on that charge, how would it also not logically follow on the other? (Again, I thought at worst it would be the other way around.)
I'm very sure I do not understand how the jury got where it did.
I'd love to read the instructions given to the jury. I honestly don't understand how you get here.
I thought it would be not guilty on both charges. At worst, I thought it would be a split verdict but the other way around.
