Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›
The Bezos couple’s lavish lifestyle and philanthropic plans have sparked debate about the media’s portrayal of extreme wealth.Today in MiamiIn a recent New York Times profile, multi-billionaire Jeff Bezos and his new wife Lauren Sánchez Bezos revealed that they start each day by listing 10 things they’re grateful for – all while living in a $230 million Miami mansion and planning how to spend their immense wealth. The article has drawn criticism from readers who feel it glamorizes the lifestyles of the ultra-rich.
Why it matters
The profile has sparked debate about the media’s portrayal of extreme wealth and whether it serves to normalize or glorify the lifestyles of the super-rich. Some argue the article fails to critically examine the broader societal implications of such concentrated wealth and privilege.
The details
According to the Times article, the Bezos couple wakes up around 6 a.m. in their Miami ‘Billionaire Bunker’ home and immediately list 10 unique things they’re grateful for before drinking coffee from mugs with playful slogans. The profile also mentions Lauren Sánchez Bezos’ love of helicopters, fashion, and her plans to protect narwhals with her wealth.
- The New York Times profile was published on April 12, 2026.
The players
Jeff Bezos
The co-founder and former CEO of Amazon, currently the world’s third-richest person.
Lauren Sánchez Bezos
Jeff Bezos’ new wife, a former news anchor and helicopter pilot who has become involved in various philanthropic and business ventures.
New York Times
The prominent American newspaper that published the profile on the Bezos couple.
What they’re saying
“I didn’t realize that Bezos bought the New York Times too.”
— Josh Elman, Reader
“Peak Epstein class #BrokenTimes: deciding to assign this glamour shot and puff piece. “Unabashed rich-person exuberance is back[!]”
— Jeff Jarvis, Author
The takeaway
The Bezos profile has reignited debates about the media’s role in covering extreme wealth and whether such coverage serves to normalize or glorify the lifestyles of the ultra-rich. Critics argue the article fails to adequately examine the broader societal implications of such concentrated wealth and privilege.
















