3 ms·
> The WP reportedly lost $100m in 2024. So one the one hand, you might understand Bezos wanting things to change. You don't even "might understand" this, becau
by deaux 8mo ago
> The WP reportedly lost $100m in 2024. So one the one hand, you might understand Bezos wanting things to change.
You don't even "might understand" this, because you're intelligent enough to grasp that its profitability as a newspaper was never a factor in Bezos' desire to purchase the WP.
- potro 8mo agoThere is quite a bit of difference between not making a profit and consistently losing around $100m a year with apparently no path to at least revenue neutrality.
- rapnie 8mo agoSo it loses pocket change for a multi billionaire? Edit: The consideration being that perhaps billionaire toys need not be profitable per se, but are purchased for different reasons. Twitter is another example here.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- potro 8mo agoA $100m here, a $100m there, pretty soon, you're talking real money.
- cenamus 8mo agoYeah, he could only keep this going for another 2600 years
- bravetraveler 8mo agoY'all are talking about the real Scrooge McDuck.
- ZeroGravitas 8mo agoThat's assuming the pro-billionaire propaganda it produces doesn't make him many hundreds of millions more. In that light an arbitrary but vaguely plausible reason to fire anyone who insists on doing actual journalism and not billionaire propaganda is a useful tool.
- surgical_fire 8mo agoHe could, you know, not have bought the newspaper too. It didn't belong to him originally. It's not like he will make it profitable anyway.