It should be no surprise that he's pissed that that amount of investment isn't starting to pay dividends.
It should be no surprise that he's pissed that that amount of investment isn't starting to pay dividends.
In contrast, Amazon's protest resulted in an injunction because the judge determined it was likely Amazon would prevail in trial.
DoD couldn't care less about Bezos' mansion or HQ2's impact on the city's economy.
And running a newspaper that continuously annoys a President doesn't really fit the apparently popular idea that Bezos is spending money to get favourable treatment from politicians.
Especially when that politician you're annoying is known to have a somewhat vindictive streak and doesn't quite grok the difference between being entrusted money and power to use on behalf of a country and owning money and spending it in his own interest
At least from outward appearances, most of the ruling class and permanent government isn't particularly fond of the current President.
Also the swine flu was much less of a problem for the US: the CDC reported less than 13,000 deaths in the US over a one year period vs stats today of over 34,000 for COVID-19 in just a few months — despite the extra precautions taken.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownersh...
Still, it seems to me that the Trump administration originally clearly wanted to go for a 'herd immunity' strategy and changed it due to political rather than practical considerations. I'm quite sure that if it had the relationship with the fifth estate that, say, the Biden campaign enjoys, there would have been very little political fallout as a result. The press has managed the truth far more aggressively for other administrations.
Try continuously. Every problem is someone else's fault, and every success is solely because of him.
How do you know that?
It seems he had a mix of reasons, he says. No doubt now that it's a functioning entity he has an added bonus. I remember at the time though most people thought he was throwing good money after bad.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephaniedenning/2018/09/19/why...
If he bought it to gain political influence, which seems to me the only reason that makes any sense whatsoever, or for any other reason that would put him in a bad light, he would not in a million years come out and say that openly.
Leaders like Bezos don't have to write down a memo to make sure people carry out their will.
You're wildly underestimating how rebellious newspaper editors are. If someone was messing with the reporting, everyone in DC would know, and you'd see remarkably detailed reporting on it throughout other parts of the press.
There is a mindset that dominates academia and carries on into the media.
It is reflected in the political donations of journalists.
And the distribution of the story bias.
It perhaps one should say "stunning lack of anything resembling a distribution".
All news has bias, but some are more biased than others, and that bias varies from personal and ingrained to organizational and intentional. It's important to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were.
Project Veritas is a right-wing, extremely partisan organization with a shady history. They are not an organization that I would trust.
My awareness of him is from several "stunts" where he "went undercover" and interviewed his targets surreptitiously and then dishonestly edited the results to support his ideological narrative.
I associate cable news with general incompetence, corporate shilling and whatnot, but generally a "noisy" signal. PV, on the other hand, is driven purely by right-wing ideological goals.
Amazons share price has grown 136,000% in the past 23 years or 36.8% per year. That is far above S&P 500 returns and the exact case for when you want a company reinvesting in themself instead of paying out dividends.
Maybe if he bought and renovated an apartment building. Held events in a top floor space. Transformed the lobby into a community business and tech center.