{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreibtd3bmdiausu6xdjg4yhdsy4rlpan6myjfab7o4q65jgvzcosk6q",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:b4ghe7er2rpzpumtu6kic6jc/app.bsky.feed.post/3mgur7l4tt4i2"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreigjgcrraco5qotfrnw23oo2eouzmto74qx4ryl73scwefb5otksx4"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/png",
    "size": 3252305
  },
  "description": "Live Nation strikes a deal with the DOJ.",
  "path": "/live-nation-ticketmaster-settlement/",
  "publishedAt": "2026-03-12T15:55:47.000Z",
  "site": "https://www.readtangle.com",
  "tags": [
    "_Get free emails_",
    "_here_",
    "You can become a member by clicking here.",
    "_The report_",
    "_The announcement_",
    "_The comments_",
    "_The numbers_",
    "_The reports_",
    "_The attack_",
    "what to cut back on",
    "simple money moves",
    "Read The List",
    "_reached a settlement_",
    "_agreed_",
    "_40 state attorneys general_",
    "_indicated_",
    "_merged_",
    "_launched an investigation_",
    "_filed_",
    "_also includes_",
    "_said_",
    "_chaotic courtroom scene_",
    "** _“settlement solves nothing.”_**",
    "** _“pardoned Ticketmaster when no one was looking.”_**",
    "** _“Ticketmaster’s grip on live concerts is finally starting to break.”_**",
    "** _“antitrust comes for Live Nation.”_**",
    "** _“Live Nation settled its lawsuit with the feds.”_**",
    "** _“expect cheaper concert tickets.”_**",
    "**leave a comment**",
    "_Industry experts_",
    "_lawmakers_",
    "_reporters_",
    "_numbers_",
    "_one example_",
    "_rebuttal_",
    "_1914 Clayton Act_",
    "_$25.1 billion_",
    "_profit_",
    "_reportedly end_",
    "_prefer_",
    "_owns_",
    "_goes to the venues_",
    "_major part_",
    "_demand_",
    "_boomed_",
    "_venue_",
    "_enacted_",
    "_Let us know_",
    "_answered a reader question_",
    "_highlighted_",
    "_since October 7_",
    "_aligned_",
    "_both_",
    "_sides_",
    "_announced_",
    "_most recent review_",
    "**fill out this form**",
    "_The Washington Post has the story_",
    "yet money still vanishes",
    "****See the Full List****",
    "_the U.S.–Canada trade war_",
    "_the Georgia special election_",
    "_giant balloon animal sculptures_",
    "_TODAY has the story_"
  ],
  "textContent": "_I'm Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”_\n\n _Are you new here?__Get free emails_ _to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast_ _here_ _._\n\n### Today’s read: 14 minutes.\n\n🎟️\n\nLive Nation agreed to pay $280 million and make several reforms to its business practices — will it change the live events industry? Plus, we change our minds on The Washington Post editorial board.\n\n### What happened to net neutrality?\n\nIn 2017, “the end of the internet as we know it” seemed imminent. The Federal Communications Commission was preparing to vote on a rollback of net neutrality protections, and politicians, celebrities, free speech advocates, and millions of everyday people rallied together against the repeal effort. Despite the public uproar, net neutrality rules went away and haven’t been back since. So what happened to claims that the internet would be forever changed?\n\nIn tomorrow’s Friday edition, we’re publishing the third installment of our “What happened to…?” series, where we revisit news cycles from years past that carried dire warnings of major societal shifts but quietly disappeared.\n\n****Reminder:**** You’re on our free list. That gets you Monday–Thursday ad-supported newsletters. Premium members unlock members-only, ad-free content like our Friday and Sunday editions (and support independent journalism).\n\n You can become a member by clicking here. \n\n### Quick hits.\n\n  1. A preliminary Pentagon inquiry into the February 28 missile strike that hit an elementary school in Iran, killing approximately 175 people, reportedly found that the United States was likely responsible for the strike. The investigation is still ongoing. (_The report_)\n  2. The International Energy Agency (IEA) announced that its member countries will release 400 million barrels of oil from their emergency stocks in an effort to ease oil prices that have sharply increased due to the war in Iran and attacks on oil vessels in the Gulf. (_The announcement_) On Wednesday, President Donald Trump said the United States intends to release 172 million barrels of oil as part of the IEA’s collective effort. (_The comments_)\n  3. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the consumer price index increased 2.4% on an annual basis in February and rose 0.3% from the month prior. (_The numbers_)\n  4. Multiple outlets reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Joint Terrorism Task Force sent memos to California police departments in late February, warning of Iranian ambitions to launch drone attacks against unspecified targets in California in response to a war with the United States. (_The reports_)\n  5. Michigan-based medical device company Stryker announced that it experienced a cyberattack possibly linked to a pro-Iranian group, affecting many employees’ cell phones and computers and leaving them unable to connect to company networks. (_The attack_)\n\n\n\nSPONSORED by finance buzz\n\n****19 Things to Cut When Money Gets Tight (Most People Ignore #11)****\n\nPrices are going up, which can make figuring out what to cut back on feel overwhelming.\n\nYou’re not \"bad\" with money; you likely already eat at home, cancel unused subscriptions, and hunt for deals, yet your cash still seems to disappear.\n\nThe truth is that even smart people often miss the simple money moves that drain their accounts every day.\n\nIf you feel like you're doing everything right but still hitting a wall, it’s time to learn how to keep more cash in your hands.\n\nRead our list of money-saving strategies below to find out how to keep hundreds more in your pocket each month.\n\n Read The List \n\n### Today’s topic.\n\nThe Live Nation settlement. On Monday, Live Nation Entertainment Inc. _reached a settlement_ with the Department of Justice (DOJ) a week into its antitrust trial. The government had argued that the company’s subsidiary Ticketmaster constituted an illegal monopoly over the ticketing industry. As conditions for the settlement, Ticketmaster _agreed_ to provide a standalone ticketing system for third-party use, divest from exclusive arrangements with up to 13 amphitheaters, reserve 50% of tickets for nonexclusive venues, and cap ticketing service fees at 15% for events in amphitheaters it owns.\n\nOf the _40 state attorneys general_ who signed onto the suit, 28 _indicated_ they’ll continue fighting at the state level. U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York Arun Subramanian, who is presiding over the case, gave the holdouts until the end of the week to negotiate; if no deal is reached, the trial could resume as early as Monday.\n\n**Back up:** Live Nation is a global entertainment conglomerate that owns and operates concert venues and manages artists. In 2010, Live Nation _merged_ with Ticketmaster, a ticket sales and distribution company that dominates the primary ticketing market for live events, sparking criticism that the new company constituted a monopoly. The DOJ _launched an investigation_ into the company in 2022. At the time, public frustration with the company was growing after high traffic for Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour crashed Ticketmaster’s systems and led Ticketmaster to cancel the general admissions sale, leaving millions of fans locked out. In May 2024, the DOJ — joined by 30 state attorneys general — formally _filed_ an antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation. The government’s initial preferred remedy was a structural breakup, forcing Live Nation to divest Ticketmaster entirely.\n\nThe settlement _also includes_ an eight-year extension of the company’s consent decree with the DOJ, which bars Live Nation from threatening to restrict concerts from venues that don’t sign deals with Ticketmaster. No financial component is included as part of the DOJ settlement itself, but Live Nation created a $280 million fund to address individual states’ damages claims.\n\nJustice Department officials _said_ Monday’s proposed settlement is designed to drive down ticket prices and give consumers more choice. However, the DOJ announced the settlement in court during a live trial without alerting the judge or jury, creating a _chaotic courtroom scene_ and sparking criticism from attorneys general and lawmakers. Judge Subramanian _said_ the announcement showed “absolute disrespect for the court, the jury, and the entire process.”\n\nThe state attorneys general who are continuing the suit at the state level publicly criticized the deal. “The settlement… fails to address the monopoly at the center of this case, and would benefit Live Nation at the expense of consumers,” New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) said. “Our resolve has not wavered,” said Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti (R). “We are proud to stand with a powerful core of conservative AGs and bipartisan partners from across the country committed to continuing the fight.”\n\nWe’ll cover what the left and right are saying about the lawsuit and the settlement below, followed by Senior Editor Will Kaback’s take.\n\n### What the left is saying.\n\n  * **The left broadly criticizes the settlement, saying it doesn’t address the company’s monopolistic structure.**\n  * **Some highlight the ties between Live Nation and the Trump administration.**\n  * **Others argue the agreement includes meaningful concessions to Ticketmaster’s competitors.**\n\n\n\n**In The Sling, Ron Knox said the**** _“settlement solves nothing.”_**\n\n“In 2010, antitrust enforcers from the Obama administration ignored the chorus of music industry and consumer critics warning about the unchecked power of a merged Ticketmaster and Live Nation. They approved the deal over these objections, subject to some promises that the combined company wouldn’t force venues to use Ticketmaster in order to host Live Nation artists and tours (or what antitrust recognizes as a ‘tie-in’),” Knox wrote. “Eight years later, Live Nation was found to have violated that remedy so flagrantly that even the first Trump administration was forced to take action. But rather than sue the company to break it up, they made Live Nation double-promise that it wouldn’t abuse its monopoly again. Nothing changed.”\n\n“This settlement appears destined to fail as well, for the reasons conduct remedies often do. The proposed behavioral fixes to Live Nation’s monopoly power do nothing to address the structure of the company, which is the thing that gives it the power and motivation to dominate every corner of the live music industry,” Knox said. “So long as Live Nation controls Ticketmaster, it will want to compel the many hundreds of major artists it manages and the tours it organizes to use Ticketmaster. The milquetoast guardrails the settlement creates around venue and artist choice in ticketing platforms do nothing to change the interrelated nature of Live Nation’s business.”\n\n**In BIG, Matt Stoller wrote that Trump**** _“pardoned Ticketmaster when no one was looking.”_**\n\n“The Antitrust Division abruptly announced that it has reached a deal with Live Nation/Ticketmaster, which led to the company’s stock skyrocketing on the news. But then the state enforcers, who are also plaintiffs, said they would not be sandbagged, and pledged to continue the trial,” Stoller said. “This kind of split, in a monopolization case, is exceedingly rare, and it never happens in a single day in court.”\n\n“Broadly, this consent decree would be the third Ticketmaster ‘deal’ since 2010, and none of them have delivered competition to the market. So there’s no reason to assume this one will either,” Stoller wrote. “Ultimately, hanging over these proceedings is the specter of corruption. Live Nation retained well-known MAGA lobbyist and fixer Mike Davis, who was able to force the previous antitrust chief, Gail Slater, from office. Another Trump lobbyist, Kellyanne Conway, works for Ticketmaster. And the company donated $500,000 to Trump’s inaugural.”\n\n**In Slate, Nitish Pahwa suggested**** _“Ticketmaster’s grip on live concerts is finally starting to break.”_**\n\n“However disappointing the initial result may be for everyone who desired some accountability for Ticketmaster’s myriad sins (crashing during ‘Eras’ tour sales, overcharging venues and attendees, teaming up with scalpers), the fight is not over,” Pahwa said. “And the current deal also comes with notable concessions that clamp down on some of Live Nation’s most risible business practices. Bit by bit, the near-unanimous public antipathy toward Ticketmaster is gradually transforming audiences’ ticket-buying experience for the better — in large part by opening up access to competitors eager to demonstrate that they’re not the dreaded, hated Ticketmaster.”\n\n“Another bonus of this settlement: Major venues — whether or not they’re owned by or contracted with Live Nation — will no longer have to direct customers to Ticketmaster’s interface by default, to the advantage of upstart ticketing companies like Dice, which is often praised by its partners for using extra guardrails to secure against resale price gouging and fraudulent bot-driven transactions,” Pahwa wrote. “That indicates another key bit of the fallout: further empowerment of the anti-Ticketmaster movement.”\n\n### What the right is saying.\n\n  * **The right questions the government’s antitrust allegations against Live Nation.**\n  * **Some say the company shouldn’t bear the blame for high ticket prices.**\n  * **Others argue the deal could leave concertgoers worse off than before.**\n\n\n\n**In May 2024, The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote**** _“antitrust comes for Live Nation.”_**\n\n“Look past the government’s legal theatrics; its essential complaint is that Live Nation Entertainment is too big. But where’s the antitrust violation?” the board asked. “Most economists agree that vertical integration typically produces efficiencies that benefit consumers by reducing what’s known as ‘double marginalization.’ Yet DOJ portrays Live Nation’s use of profitable businesses to subsidize its lower-margin businesses as an antitrust violation. If this were true, thousands of businesses would be breaking the law.”\n\n“Ticketmaster takes a roughly 5% to 7% cut on a ticket sale, and its fees are lower than those of competitors. DOJ says some Live Nation business lines generate up to a 70% profit margin. Yet Live Nation and Ticketmaster boast a combined 1.4% annual net profit,” the board wrote. “This hardly demonstrates monopoly power. Antitrust is popular in today’s anti-business era, especially when the Attorney General can denounce high ticket prices. But press releases won’t win in court.”\n\n**In Reason, Jack Nicastro said**** _“Live Nation settled its lawsuit with the feds.”_**\n\n“Following its 2010 acquisition of Ticketmaster, Live Nation became ‘the world’s leading live entertainment ticketing sales…company,’ according to the Justice Department… Given this massive market share, one might assume that Live Nation is responsible for jacking up ticket prices to concerts,” Nicastro wrote. “But this isn’t how the primary ticket market works. Performers themselves set the price, which ticketing companies sell for a fee of about 7 percent of the ticket’s face value. Even including venue and ticket fees, which increase the all-in ticket price by as much as 30 percent, there are far more tickets demanded than available at this low price.”\n\n“The Justice Department might notch Live Nation’s settlement as a win in the war on affordability, but as long as performers price tickets markedly below what their fans are willing to pay, scalpers will be strongly incentivized to purchase these tickets at this below-market rate and get them in the hands of the fans who value them the most,” Nicastro said. “The answer is not more government intervention, but allowing prices to work.”\n\n**The Washington Post editorial board told readers not to**** _“expect cheaper concert tickets.”_******\n\n“The Justice Department settled with the entertainment conglomerate Live Nation this week to end a lawsuit that should never have been brought. It’s unclear whether consumers will be any better off after this lengthy legal fight, but that’s nothing new in the world of antitrust,” the board wrote. “Ticketmaster will give other companies access to parts of its own backend technological systems to make it easier for venues to sell through competing providers. And Live Nation is going to let competitors share what have been exclusive arrangements with 13 amphitheaters.”\n\n“Venues should be able to freely opt in to contracts with ticketing providers of their choice. But government compelling a private company to share its proprietary technology platforms with competitors will have unpredictable results,” the board said. “Concert-goers could end up worse off if new entrants use the tickets being sold at retail price to direct customers toward resale markets that offer seats at significantly higher price points. Live Nation’s critics are mad that it wasn’t broken up, and no doubt the company is miffed at being arbitrarily hamstrung. The only people walking away happy now are lawyers and lobbyists.”\n\n### My take.\n\n**Reminder: “My take” is a section where we give ourselves space to share a personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or****leave a comment****.**\n\n  * **Live Nation has engaged in shady — if not illegal — practices, and this settlement will address some key harms.**\n  * **However, this case won’t resolve deeper issues with live events.**\n  * **Out-of-control ticket prices are ultimately a textbook case of supply and demand.**\n\n\n\n**Senior Editor Will Kaback:** I came of age as a concertgoer in the post-Covid world, so I don’t have a strong sense of the “before” times. Now that I’m out of school and living in New York City, I attend a lot more live events. Even without a baseline to compare it to, in just the past few years, ticket prices seem to have shot up, the buying process has become more convoluted, and the event experience itself is more corporate and less human.\n\nWhen I read about the Justice Department’s lawsuit against Live Nation back in 2024, I was excited by the prospect of change. Live Nation and Ticketmaster are ubiquitous in all things events. It seems obvious that they are, at minimum, approaching monopoly status and abusing their growing leverage. _Industry experts_, _lawmakers_ and _reporters_ confirmed that sense, and after the 2022 Taylor Swift debacle, an array of Republican and Democratic attorneys general signing onto the DOJ’s suit looked a lot like responsive democratic governance.\n\nThat suit has now produced a settlement agreement that reportedly includes up to $280 million toward damage claims and changes to the company’s most pernicious alleged practices. I support this outcome and think the deal will rein in some of Live Nation’s worst behavior, to the benefit of artists, venues, and fans alike. But I also think Live Nation has become a punching bag for all the things we dislike about live events, and the tendency to blame them for everything wrong with the industry obscures a key issue they don’t control: demand.\n\nFirst, the benefits of the settlement. In 2024, the DOJ accused Live Nation of a host of anti-competitive practices, all of which plausibly damage the event experience. In simple terms, the company allegedly drove up prices and boxed out competitors by amassing control over venues, tours, and ticket sales. The _numbers_ speak for themselves: Under the DOJ’s definition of the events market, Live Nation controls over 80% of major concert venues’ primary ticketing for concerts and about 60% of concert promotions at major U.S. venues. It also owns or controls more than 265 venues outright.\n\nThat degree of control makes the situation ripe for abuse. In _one example_ cited in the suit, Live Nation allegedly colluded with venue development company Oak View Group (OVG) to minimize competition and maintain leverage over artists. In 2016, according to emails obtained by the DOJ, Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino emailed OVG CEO Timothy Leiweke, seemingly warning against taking on an artist that Live Nation had previously promoted and suggesting it would allow the artist’s agent to play the companies off each other. Leiweke replied, “Our guys got [a] bit ahead. All know we don’t promote and we only do tours with Live Nation.” When a similar issue arose in 2022, Leiweke told Rapino, “We have never promoted without you. Won't,” adding, “I never want to be competitors.”\n\nIn its _rebuttal_ to the DOJ suit, Live Nation said that OVG is a venue manager, not a promoter, so a mutually beneficial agreement between the companies is reasonable (and legal). In theory, that’s a fair point. But the emails suggest a deeper relationship wherein OVG acted as an unofficial arm of Live Nation in return for exclusive business arrangements. Such arrangements would strip leverage from both artists and fans — and could constitute violations of the _1914 Clayton Act_.\n\nMonetarily, the settlement is a slap on the wrist. The $280 million fund amounts to 1% of Live Nation’s _$25.1 billion_ in revenue in fiscal year 2025. Yes, it’s also about 40% of its $690 million _profit_ for FY 2025, but they get to keep their business whole and avoid what could have been a crippling cost if they had lost at trial. However, the changes to how Live Nation can interact with other players in the event space are significant. The deal would _reportedly end_ its exclusive relationships with venues (allowing multiple vendors to sell tickets for an event) and permit touring artists performing in Live Nation-owned amphitheaters to use non-Live Nation promotion companies. Both of these reforms take direct aim at monopolistic practices and seem like wins for artists and venues (though, for what it’s worth, many venues _prefer_ to have exclusive partnerships with ticket platforms like Ticketmaster for simplicity).\n\nBut the biggest victory, in my opinion, is the agreement to cap service fees at 15% of a ticket’s face value. Though this only applies to amphitheaters that Live Nation owns, operates or controls, the company _owns_ many of the most popular amphitheaters, so many consumers should pay lower fees. For reference, I recently bought tickets through Ticketmaster to see one of my favorite artists (Rüfüs Du Sol) perform at a Live Nation-owned amphitheater. The tickets themselves were $64.50 each with a $19.25 service fee tacked on. That’s 30% of the face price! Ticketmaster doesn’t keep 100% of that fee — a portion _goes to the venues_ to support their operations — but revenue from fees is a _major part_ of Live Nation’s business model.\n\nScreenshot of my ticket receipt from Ticketmaster\n\nUnder this settlement, that fee would be halved, meaningfully lowering the cost to attend many shows and dampening the frustration of extra costs in the checkout process. It’s also a major concession for Live Nation, given how much money it makes from these fees.\n\nAgain, the core tenets of this deal contain wins for venues, artists and fans, and it would represent a step toward a healthier live events space. But I don’t think it will bring _down_ event prices or make the ticket-buying process less stressful.\n\nFor all the talk of the pandemic leaving us more isolated and introverted, _demand_ for in-person experiences has _boomed_. If you’ve participated in concert presales recently, you’ve probably witnessed this demand firsthand; for the show I referenced above, over 60,000 people were with me in the ticket queue (for a _venue_ with a 27,500-person capacity).\n\nAnd, hey, that’s great. I love that people want to get together to dance and listen to music, and I love that it means more support for amazing artists of all stripes (not just Taylor Swift and Harry Styles). But demand _is_ outstripping supply, and supply _is_ inherently limited by venues’ capacity and finite tour dates. I don’t think any government intervention can change this reality.\n\nOne possible way to address affordability is to crack down on the ticket resale market, which has become a diseased husk of bot activity. Maine recently _enacted_ a first-of-its-kind law that bans ticket purchasers from using bots to buy tickets in bulk and caps the markup price that resellers can apply to tickets on the secondary market at 10%. I’ll be curious to see what effect the law has on ticket prices, and whether other states follow suit.\n\nBluntly, though, I don’t think laws like this are the answer, either. The resale market has grown so big because people are willing to pay for these tickets, even at massive markups. We simply haven’t hit a point where enough people decide they can’t afford a ticket for an event they want to attend to bring demand in equilibrium with supply (or close to it). Putting limits on resale prices might bring down the average cost of tickets, but I suspect it will just make live events inaccessible to everyone except those lucky enough to be at the front of the virtual queue when tickets are released.\n\nIt’s a bitter pill to swallow, but high prices are the cost of making tickets accessible to the people who want them most. And that will remain true no matter how big a fine Live Nation pays, how many reforms it agrees to, or — in the most extreme outcome — if it’s forced to split off from Ticketmaster. Demand is demand.\n\nSo, yes, this settlement addresses real problems that should lead to tangible improvements at several levels of the events industry, but it’s not a silver bullet.\n\n****Staff dissent — Executive Producer Jon Lall:**** As someone who has sold tickets to shows as a musician and has many close relationships in this industry, I think Will understates Ticketmaster's control of the resale market. DOJ’s amended complaint says Ticketmaster’s resale share in North America accounted for nearly one third of ticket resales in 2022. The DOJ also alleges that Ticketmaster’s SafeTix technology is an anticompetitive tool, making it harder for fans to use rival resale platforms by requiring transfers to occur within Ticketmaster’s platform, pushing fans toward Ticketmaster resale instead. And here’s the kicker: Ticketmaster typically gets fees from both the sellers and the buyers as well.\n\nMany artists have expressed a desire to price some tickets below face value in the hopes of allowing fans of ordinary means to come to a show, and Ticketmaster says they want to work with artists in doing this. In reality, they offer ample opportunity for bots to infiltrate the purchasing queue, then dominate the resale market — both of which they control. Any settlement that doesn't address this total control of the purchasing system will continue to rob agency from artists and box ordinary people out of the opportunity to attend live events.\n\n**Take the survey:** What do you think of the settlement? _Let us know_.\n\n_Disagree? That's okay. Our opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback._\n\n### Our latest episode of Suspension of the Rules.\n\nOn this week’s episode of _Suspension of the Rules_ , Isaac, Ari and Kmele talk about whether Americans are actually paying attention to the war in Iran, if and when Trump will exit, and the “Israel” of it all.\n\nOur latest episode of Suspension of the Rules\n\n### Your questions, answered.\n\n**Q: Hey, why is The Washington Post editorial board listed under “What the right is saying” today? Didn’t you previously argue that they should still be categorized under “the left”?**\n\n**— Anticipated reader question**\n\n**Tangle:** Last October, we _answered a reader question_ about our rationale for continuing to categorize commentary from The Washington Post editorial board under the left, despite recent shakeups inside the paper’s opinion section. We acknowledged those changes, but noted that the major media bias evaluators still gave them a “left” rating, and the editorial board was still publishing columns that could reasonably be construed as center-left.\n\nCandidly, even when we wrote that we had our doubts. Those doubts manifested as a kind of paralysis within our editorial team (_highlighted_ in our “leaked” Slack transcripts), and we haven’t included The Post’s editorial board in either the right or left sections _since October 7_, even though we still refer to their commentary in our daily research.\n\nToday’s edition forced our hand, and we’re glad it did. We found exactly three opinion pieces from conservative writers on the Live Nation case, but only if we counted The Post’s editorial board. In our discussion on how to proceed, two key points swayed us toward recategorizing them.\n\nOne, the board has been writing more overtly conservative columns in the last few months. In October, many of their pieces _aligned_ with a moderate or center-left view; today, their writing is more tailored toward principled conservative arguments. They still criticize _both_ _sides_, but those critiques are exclusively rooted in anti-regulation, anti-tax, pro-market fundamentals.\n\nTwo, the media-bias reviewers are out of date or cast too wide a net. AllSides last reviewed The Post in January 2025, before Post owner Jeff Bezos _announced_ the opinion section would shift its focus. Media Bias/Fact Check last reviewed the paper in October 2024. AdFontes maintains an up-to-date review, but bases it on the entirety of The Post’s coverage — not just its opinion page. However, its _most recent review_ of an individual editorial board article rated the piece as “skews right.” Back in October, we missed this nuance and put more weight on the media-bias reviewers than we should have.\n\nGoing forward, we feel comfortable defending the decision to move the editorial board to the right, and you can expect to see them reappear in the newsletter.\n\n**Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or****fill out this form****.**\n\n### Under the radar.\n\nIn January, a whistleblower filed a complaint with the Social Security Administration (SSA) inspector general, alleging that a former DOGE employee said he had access to two highly sensitive databases and planned to share the information with his private employer. The inspector general has opened an investigation into the disclosure, sharing the complaint with members of Congress and the Government Accountability Office. The complaint alleges that the former DOGE employee claimed to possess SSA data on more than 500 million living and dead Americans. _The Washington Post has the story_.\n\nSPONSORED by finance buzz\n\n****The Money Drains Smart People Miss****\n\nYou cook at home, cancel subscriptions, hunt for deals — yet money still vanishes.\n\nYou're not bad with money; you're probably missing the overlooked drains that hit smart people hardest. We compiled ****19 cuts**** that actually move the needle, including one most people never think to make.\n\n****See the Full List********.****\n\n### Numbers.\n\n_We're skipping today's Numbers section to make space for our main story._\n\n### The extras.\n\n  * **One year ago today** we covered _the U.S.–Canada trade war_.\n  * **The most clicked link in yesterday’s newsletter** was _the Georgia special election_.\n  * **Nothing to do with politics:** A Japanese artist’s unique and captivating _giant balloon animal sculptures_.\n  * **Yesterday’s survey:** 1,888 readers responded to our survey on the February jobs report with 57% saying the report shows the economy is weak. “The economy has a concerning cough, but it remains to be seen whether it’s allergies or TB,” one respondent said. “Relax, it’s just one month’s data. Give it more time before declaring disaster or victory,” said another.\n\n\n\n### Have a nice day.\n\nIn the Chicago-area retirement community Sunrise of Crystal Lake, a handful of residents have found a new way to stay active and creative in their old age. They’re members of the “Rolling Scones” cooking club, and they gather every Saturday to cook together. “I get to feel like I’m being creative again, because, well, when my husband got sick, I had to just walk past my sewing room and leave all the projects I had done and cook for him and take care of him before we came here,” club member Nancy Rieck said. “This creative need that I have is being fulfilled by creating salads.” _TODAY has the story_.",
  "title": "Are your concert tickets about to get cheaper?",
  "updatedAt": "2026-03-12T15:55:49.052Z"
}