The overall bias of this article is apparent from the very beginning. This is probably a good time to refer to https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ra

The overall bias of this article is apparent from the very beginning. This is probably a good time to refer to https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings, which lists The New Yorker as having a far-left bias. The caption below the image next to the headline: > Bezos, reportedly worth a hundred and fourteen billion dollars, has donated less than three per cent of his wealth to charity. Why is this caption relevant to the topic that the article purports to speak to in the title? And why is the opening paragraph just an unsubstantiated rumor about Jeff Bezos snubbing Bill Gates in an apparent act of vanity? Why mention something without evidence, except to influence the reader in bad faith? And again, why is it relevant to the title? A significant portion of this article is based on the opinion of one former employee, Ian Freed. Other quotes are similarly anecdotal, without representation of opposing perspectives. And the focus shifts from topic to topic abruptly, without pausing to critically question the points that are hastily presented. For example, Biden's comparison of Amazon's corporate taxes to tax rates for firefighters/teachers is nonsensical. It would make more sense to compare the personal tax rates of Amazon employees to firefighters/teachers. I will note the article isn't all bad. I thought the story about Birkenstock was fair - counterfeits do threaten the value of brands. The bit about the positive side of warehouse jobs for workers left behind in other industries was also surprising. And I think anti-trust concerns were presented well. But a lot of this very lengthy article seems to be an unfocused spray of information that presents one side of the story on many different facets, without much of a cohesive narrative.