SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
corporate media
'This Is a Wake-Up Call': Critics Disgusted as Billionaire Bezos Guts Washington Post
"Oligarchs are not the benevolent saviors media have long depicted them to be."
Feb 04, 2026
The Washington Post announced massive cuts to its newsroom staff on Wednesday, unleashing a wave of disgust directed toward its owner, billionaire Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.
As reported by Semafor reporter Maxwell Tani, Washington Post executive editor Matt Murray told staffers at the paper that it would be closing its sports department "in its current form," and would also be "killing its book section, suspending its Post Reports podcast, restructuring its metro section, and shrinking its international footprint."
With hundreds of journalists expected to lose their jobs, Murray told Post employees that the cuts were needed to help the paper "become more essential to people's lives" in "what is becoming a more crowded, competitive and complicated media landscape, and after some years when, candidly, the Post has had struggles to do that."
Many critics, however, scoffed at claims that cuts at the paper were needed to make it profitable, suggesting the real motivation came from Bezos' desire to take an ax to the US free press.
Brian Phillips, senior writer at The Ringer, rejected the notion that one of the richest men in the world couldn't afford to keep what was once a revered newspaper fully staffed.
"Bezos isn't destroying the Washington Post because it isn't profitable," he wrote in a social media post. "He's destroying the Washington Post because he's calculated that a robust free press threatens the ability of his class to warp society around their interests."
Phillips also implored other journalists to not report on the Post layoffs as "a straightforward business story," but rather "a story about coercive social transformation being imposed by people so rich they've ceased to see the rest of us as legitimate stakeholders in our own lives."
David Sirota, founder of The Lever, said the layoffs should end journalists' fantasies that billionaire owners will rescue journalism in an era of mass consolidation by corporate conglomerates, slashed newsroom budgets, and wave after wave of layoffs.
"The media world’s stunned/shocked reaction to the awful WaPo layoffs shows that even now, so many in journalism still can’t believe billionaires aren’t going to rescue them," he wrote. "This is a wake-up call: Oligarchs are not the benevolent saviors media have long depicted them to be."
Adam Serwer of the Atlantic also raised concerns about the power of wealthy oligarchs to buy and destroy historic media institutions.
"I personally do not think some rich man should be able to buy an institution like this like a toy and then break it when he doesn’t want to play with it anymore," he wrote. "Bezos fucked the paper and instead of fixing it he’s destroying it despite the fact that he could spend the money to make things right without even noticing its absence."
Jonathan Cohn, political director for Progressive Mass, noted that the Post isn't the only media organization that's being gutted by a billionaire owner, referencing billionaire Larry Ellison, a major donor to President Donald Trump, who recently acquired CBS News alongside other media properties.
"What we are seeing with WaPo and with CBS News is that the mega-rich see real financial value for themselves in destroying journalism," he wrote. "Let that sink in."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), in a post written before the Post layoffs were announced, drew attention to billionaire control over not just traditional media, but social media as well.
"When we talk about authoritarianism, it’s not just Donald Trump," wrote Sanders. "[Elon] Musk owns X. Bezos owns Twitch. [Mark] Zuckerberg owns Instagram and Facebook. Larry Ellison controls TikTok. Billionaires increasingly control what we see, hear and read."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Warn Corporate Media Is Failing in Face of White House Lies About Alex Pretti
"There were lies," former CNN anchor Jim Acosta said of the Trump administration's response to Pretti's death. "Lie after lie after lie.
Jan 26, 2026
Two prominent critics warned on Monday that the US corporate media is not being aggressive enough in calling out the Trump administration's lies about Alex Pretti, the Minneapolis resident who was slain by federal immigration agents over the weekend.
Writing on her Substack page, former New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan expressed concern that many mainstream media publications were taking a wait-and-see approach in the wake of Pretti's shooting, even as the Trump administration, Fox News, and other right-wing media websites were pumping out false claims about Pretti brandishing a weapon at federal officials and being a "domestic terrorist."
Sullivan did praise many outlets, including the Times, the Washington Post, and CNN, for doing detailed and accurate breakdowns of videos showing Pretti's fatal encounter with federal agents.
However, she was dismayed that these outlets frequently hedged their language by saying that video evidence of the Pretti killing merely "appears to" contradict the administration's claims.
"If the analyses do indeed 'directly contradict' the government’s claims, then say so—without fear or favor, as the motto goes," Sullivan emphasized. "With what amounts to civil war raging in the United States, we desperately need clear, fearless truth-telling that doesn’t pull its punches and doesn’t hand a megaphone to lies and propaganda in the name of supposed fairness."
Former CNN anchor Jim Acosta similarly criticized US media outlets for being too timid in contradicting the administration's lies about the Pretti killing.
On his own Substack page, Acosta argued that "the truth immediately came under assault" after federal agents fatally shot Pretti.
Despite possessing video evidence that showed the administration was lying about Pretti's death, Acosta wrote, too many mainstream news outlets "tiptoed around the truth" rather than stating it plainly.
"There were lies," Acosta said of the administration's response. "Lie after lie after lie. The videos from the scene did more than just 'contradict' the government account of what occurred, as the [Wall Street Journal] described it. The reality is that the eyewitness footage revealed that the administration was flat out lying to the public. Our eyes and ears told us what happened. Too many news reports simply chose not to reflect that.
Acosta reserved particular scorn for Politico, which ran a headline stating that "a battle over the truth erupts after deadly Minneapolis shooting," even though multiple videos of the incident had already been published showing exactly what the truth was.
"Federal officials, like [Stephen] Miller, were lying," Acosta said, referring to Trump's deputy chief of staff and homeland security adviser. "Full stop. Politico needed to say that."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Pocketed At Least $1.4 Billion in First Year Back in Office in Unprecedented 'Exploitation of the Presidency'
"The swamp has never been so fetid," wrote New York Times columnist Nick Kristof.
Jan 20, 2026
As millions of Americans face down devastating cuts to their healthcare and food assistance, President Donald Trump and his family personally enriched themselves to the tune of at least $1.4 billion during his first year back in office, according to an analysis published by the New York Times editorial board on Tuesday, the one-year anniversary of his second inauguration.
This unprecedented profiteering, which already amounts to 16,822 times the median US household income according to the Times, is almost certainly an undercount, as many sources of the president and his family's wealth remain hidden from public view.
"President Trump has never been a man to ask what he can do for his country. In his second term, as in his first, he is instead testing the limits of what his country can do for him," the board wrote. "He has poured his energy and creativity into the exploitation of the presidency—into finding out just how much money people, corporations, and other nations are willing to put into his pockets in hopes of bending the power of the government to the service of their interests."
Relying on a series of previous analyses from other news organizations, the Times notes several of Trump's key streams of income.
As has been widely documented, most comprehensively by Reuters in October, by far Trump's largest source of income has been his family's investment in cryptocurrencies, which has generated at least $867 million in new wealth for the family. Other investigations suggest the true number could be several billion when accounting for unreported assets and gains that have not yet been realized.
"People who hope to influence federal policy, including foreigners, can buy his family’s coins, effectively transferring money to the Trumps, and the deals are often secret," the Times board wrote.
The swamp has never been so fetid. President Trump has greedily raked in $1.4 billion (an underestimate) in the last year, often from those seeking favor. E.g. He accepts a Qatari jet and promises US forces will protect Qatar. The corruption is staggering: www.nytimes.com/interactive/...
[image or embed]
— Nick Kristof (@nickkristof.bsky.social) January 20, 2026 at 9:39 AM
It noted one particularly brazen transaction earlier this year, when an investment company owned by a member of the United Arab Emirates' (UAE) ruling family dumped $2 billion into the Trump family's crypto startup World Liberty Financial, just two weeks before the White House announced that the UAE would be given access to hundreds of thousands of the world's most advanced computer chips.
Inking real-estate deals has been another tool nations have used to buy influence with Trump. The Times cites a report from the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW), showing that the Trump Organization and its partners were planning at least 22 "Trump-branded projects around the globe" over the course of his presidency, including through hotels and golf courses in India, Oman, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Indonesia, and other nations eager to be in the US government's good graces.
In all, since his reelection, the Times calculated that Trump has reaped at least $23 million from licensing his name overseas, at times culminating in the appearance of blatant pay-for-play. In one instance, "the administration agreed to lower its threatened tariffs on Vietnam about a month after a Trump Organization project broke ground on a $1.5 billion golf complex outside of Hanoi. Vietnamese officials ignored their own laws to fast-track the project."
Another CREW analysis from July found that Trump visits his own properties roughly “every other day”—much more frequently than in his previous term—and that many foreign government officials have traveled to these sites to curry favor with the president.
CREW is tracking Trump’s conflicts of interest tied to his real estate empire, including:-Visits to Trump properties-Events held at Trump properties-Promotion of Trump business interests The pattern is clear: it’s all happening more this time around.
— CREW (@citizensforethics.org) July 22, 2025 at 2:56 PM
Trump also infamously accepted a $400 million jet, described as a “flying palace,” from the Qatari government. He plans to use the plane as Air Force One during his presidency and transfer it to his presidential library after leaving office. Shortly after receiving the jet, he pledged to “protect” Qatar and announced lucrative new military and economic partnerships with the country.
Elsewhere, Amazon spent $40 million on a documentary about First Lady Melania Trump, $28 million of which will be given directly to the first lady, which the Times said is far more than has been paid for similar projects. The company's CEO, Jeff Bezos, has critically lobbied the administration for favorable treatment regarding antitrust and defense contracts, and has seen his own wealth soar by nearly $9 billion over the past year.
But Trump’s income from media and tech companies has more commonly arrived in the form of shakedowns. He has made an estimated $90.5 million from settlements from X (formerly Twitter), ABC News, Meta, YouTube, and Paramount since his reelection, none of which, the Times argues, “were justified on the merits.”
"Mr. Trump’s hunger for wealth is brazen," the editorial board wrote. "Throughout the nation’s history, presidents of both parties have taken care to avoid even the appearance of profiting from public service. This president gleefully squeezes American corporations, flaunts gifts from foreign governments, and celebrates the rapid growth of his own fortune."
The report of Trump's looting of the presidency comes as roughly 1.3 million Americans are expected to lose health insurance coverage in 2026 due to Republican cuts to Medicaid and other assistance programs, while more than 20 million are expected to pay higher insurance premiums after the GOP allowed Affordable Care Act subsidies to expire last year. Roughly 1.5 million have already dropped their health coverage this year, according to a report last week from CNBC.
Meanwhile, about 4 million low-income people—including 1 million children—are expected to see their access to food assistance either substantially reduced or totally lost in the coming years due to Republican cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
While “Drain the Swamp” has remained one of Trump’s signature phrases, portraying the president as a crusader against endemic corruption in Washington, Times columnist Nick Kristof wrote, in the wake of his paper's new report, that under Trump’s watch, “the swamp has never been so fetid.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular