Commentary
Cringe Billionaire Lost In Space: Danger, Jeff Bezos!
- by Barbara Lippert , Columnist, April 21, 2025
Lately, self-hyping tech billionaires have become the objects of derision in our culture. Much of it has been directed at Elon “Chainsaw” Musk, who we never elected to slash our federal agencies and jobs. That his cybertrucks are exploding is just the icing on the chaos.
Whereas last week, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos positioned himself to be a great humanitarian and advocate for women with his latest Blue Origin launch, publicized as “the first all-female space flight since 1963.” That’s when a Russian female cosmonaut flew solo.
If you recall, a previous Blue Origin flight included the actor William Shatner, who played the wise Captain Kirk on “Star Trek.” He translated that persona when he returned from his (free) mini-flight, becoming an oracle and philosopher king, reflecting on the quality of his time on earth. The “I’m not an astronaut, but I-play-one-for-Bezos” bit got lots of traction.
advertisement
advertisement
Well, these are very different times. Maybe the fault was in giving free trips to TV and pop stars while promoting the stunt as an important history-making, boundary-breaking mission that, as the press release put it, will “create lasting impact that will inspire generations to come.”
Stratospherically tone-deaf, the venture comes at a time when qualified female scientists and trained female NASA employees are losing jobs, and research funding, and getting disappeared from websites. Science and STEM budgets are being slashed in schools, not to mention the end of DEI. Observatories and science museums are losing their funding, and in danger of closing.
Meanwhile, for some contemporary impact, Bezos’ fiancé Sanchez commissioned the Paris luxury fashion house Balenciaga to make the slimming and sexy electric-blue space suits for the for the crew.
Before they took off, singer Katy Perry dove right in with an Elle magazine interviewer and announced that she was putting “the ass in astronaut.”
Sometime TV anchor Lauren Sanchez added to the cosmetic spacebot vibe by saying that it would be the first time for eyelash extensions in space.
How offensive and trivializing to the 65 women who have done the real work, gone into space in the last 45 years and made significant strides for NASA. That includes Sally Ride, the first American woman in space, Kathryn Sullivan, the first to walk in space, and Mae Jemison, the first African-American woman in space. Sunita Willliams recently returned after nine months of conducting experiments on the International Space Station. I also thought of Christa McAuliffe, the teacher who was tragically killed along with six fellow astronauts when the Challenger exploded during takeoff.
Fortunately, this 11-minute Blue Origin operation succeeded without injury, except to the reputations of Katy Perry, "CBS Morning" anchor Gayle King, and, of course, Bezos.
The trip was not well-received, and the fun started when the internet lit up over a moment during the return landing, when the hatch door opened and then suddenly closed, apparently messing up the staging for Bezos, who later arrived and cosplayed with a “tool” to open the hatch.
Perry, a catalyst for snark, popped out and kissed the ground. Then she shared with the Blue Origin interviewer that “she touched the divine feminine” and felt “so much love” for herself. It was so bad that even fast-food franchise Wendy’s entered the anti-Katy fray on social media and told her to go back.
If nothing else, the capsule proved a great place for self-actualization. King, who had a tremendous fear of flying, said Oprah made her do it. Afterward, King was very pleased with herself for having taken the flight.
A slew of celebs like Emily Ratajkowski, Olivia Wilde, Olivia Munn, and Amy Schumer weighed in on social media with criticism about the waste of hundreds of millions of dollars and lack of gravitas on the part of the space-slayers.
King did not take kindly to that.
“There's nothing frivolous about what we did,” she said. Then she spun some major Blue Origin programming in responding: “So I wish people would do more due diligence. And then my question is, have y’all been to space? Go to space or go to Blue Origin and see what they do and then come back and say, ‘This is a terrible thing.'”
If only. It’s not clear what the cost of a seat is (say $250,000 and up) or whether it was covered for this very connected all-woman crew.
Then King made it worse. She acknowledged that taking a flight with Blue Origin is “expensive” -- but added “if you get enough people who are interested, it doesn’t have to be that expensive.”
Uh, it’s not like getting a group together to go hiking. The people have no bread.
So it’s funny that the idea of Marie Antoinette also came up in an article Joanna Coles wrote for the Daily Beast calling Lauren Sanchez in space “Marie Antoinette in a Penis-Shaped rocket.”
Bezos should have read the room. If his aim was, as King put it, to inspire “other women and young girls,” rather than create a cringe sales video for his space tourism business, he could have announced his own massive funding for science museums and STEM programs for the next generation of female astronauts.
That would have made waves, in a good way.
But as it is, the female “pioneers” partaking of this inauthentic adventure almost started a class war and came off as the embodiment of entitlement.
In perfect made-for-TV fashion, Oprah and two Kardashians were on the ground to receive the crew. Since then, it’s been reported that the Kardashians sent Sanchez a $6,000 Judith Lieber bag, shaped like a flying saucer, to commemorate the day. How perfect.
Rarely has an advertising and publicity stunt backfired so spectacularly. Bezos has managed to make the worst ad of the year.
And if this is the feminism of the future, we’re in for a bumpy ride.
MediaPost's MADblog columnist.
This is a perfect example of media injecting politics and cultural resentment into what should be an apolitical topic—and in MediaPost, once again, the focus is on virtue signaling and ideological performance over any serious commentary on marketing, brand value, or consumer perception.
While I agree this Blue Origin stunt came across as tone-deaf and self-indulgent, the framing of this piece says more about the author’s worldview than the actual event. Rather than analyzing this as a failed brand moment—poorly timed, misaligned messaging, superficial execution—it instead becomes a platform to attack tech billionaires, mock anyone outside their ideological camp, and lament the loss of DEI as if it were some universally adored cultural pillar. It’s not. According to a 2025 survey by the Cato Institute, 89% of Americans support auditing all federal government spending to root out waste, fraud, and abuse—including 83% of Democrats. The media may be offended by the idea of cutting bloated programs, but the public clearly isn’t. So when people defend government waste or lash out at advisors working on efficiency at the request of the highest office in the land, it’s the media who’s failing to read the room.
This article doesn’t just miss the mark—it reinforces the exact elite disconnect it mocks. Celebrity space tourism is tacky? Sure. But pretending it’s the death of STEM opportunity or a declaration of class war while ignoring that we’re $34 trillion in debt and cutting checks for pronoun training and museum drag exhibits is peak irony.
If MediaPost were serious about branding or marketing, this would’ve been framed as a cautionary tale in audience misalignment, not an excuse to push nostalgia-driven feminist outrage mixed with anti-billionaire snark. Bezos didn’t "start a class war"—he just greenlit a PR stunt that lacked self-awareness. That’s a marketing failure, not a moral crisis.
And for all the drama, this article says absolutely nothing about what brands should learn from the fallout. That’s the real miss.
Thank you for pointing it out John, this place I came back to for keeping up on valuable industry trends and insights is as bad as HuffPo anymore.
Let me defend Barbara Lippert. Ms. Lippert did not attack tech-billionaires but I will. How cynical of them to rush to Trump's inauguration and donate millions to his inauguration fund grift. How did that work out for Mark Zuckerberg? Audit federal agencies? Sure. But dont send Elon Musk with a chainsaw to dismantle agencies with no regard for the work they do. You may not like some MediaPost writer's take on the administration, but they are just reporting the truth and maybe you dont like that.
Here’s the problem with your response—it dodges the issue and tries to bury criticism under political outrage. Barbara Lippert absolutely framed her piece around class resentment, cultural bitterness, and identity politics. It wasn’t reporting, it was commentary loaded with sarcasm, selective outrage, and carefully aimed shots at people she disagrees with. That’s fine if you’re writing an opinion column, but don’t call it “truth” and expect it to be taken as serious journalism.
As for the attack on Musk, it's not about whether someone "brings a chainsaw" to government—it's about whether bloated, unaccountable agencies should be examined and trimmed down. The public says yes—overwhelmingly. You want accountability? Then let’s actually have it. That doesn’t mean scorched earth, but it does mean stopping the reflexive defense of every agency just because someone you dislike wants to fix it.
Dragging Trump and Zuckerberg into it only proves the point: this isn’t about the facts—it’s about political hostility. And when a writer uses a celebrity space launch as an excuse to throw punches at DEI cuts, tax policy, and museum funding, while ignoring why people are tuning out, it’s clear they’re not reading the room. You can dislike Musk and still admit that MediaPost has drifted from marketing into activism. And people aren’t turning away from these brands and media outlets because they “can’t handle the truth”—they’re walking away because they’re tired of being lectured and insulted every time they check the news.
Perhaps activism is called for at this time when examining and trimming federal agencies is just a cover story for a take over by an authoritarian regime.
Calling efforts to examine and trim federal agencies a cover for authoritarianism is pure fearmongering. Most Americans—across political lines—support cutting government waste. That’s not tyranny, that’s common sense.
And really—what is MediaPost’s purpose now? It’s supposed to be about marketing, not political paranoia. If they want to be an opinion site, say so. But don’t dress up partisan takes as marketing analysis. That’s not reporting—it’s agenda-pushing.
John you state "It wasn’t reporting, it was commentary loaded with sarcasm..."
Maybe you missed the "Commentary" subheading just below the Madblog logo? Understandable oversight considering you rarely waste any time rushing to defend the Trump agenda on MediaPost.
If you dislike the opinions in the (again) COMMENTARY section so much, why do you spend so much time here? As a literal opinion columnist, Barbara is entitled to her opinion, and appreciated by the editors and most readers for sharing it. You don't have to agree with her, but to criticize her for not adhering to your (skewed, in my view) definition of journalism is nothing short of disingenuous.
Artie, I didn’t miss the “Commentary” label. The issue isn’t that Barbara shared an opinion—it’s that MediaPost is supposed to be a publication about business, media, and marketing, not partisan commentary loosely connected to branding. Even opinion columns carry an expectation of relevance to the industry. When every other piece leans into politics instead of offering useful analysis for marketers, it’s fair to question the editorial direction.
And by now, you should recognize that my comments aren’t about defending any politician. I’m questioning why politics keeps showing up in a space that used to be focused on marketing strategy and consumer insight. If every commentary turns into a political editorial, then it’s not the readers who are missing the point, it’s the platform losing track of its original purpose.
Your points are intelligent and appreciated throughout. The number of Stockholm Syndrome types defending government waste & corruption is far beyond anything I ever imagined. People would literally rather see the country destroyed than the corruption exposed and cut, simply because they don't want to hand President Orange a "win."
Their hatred of the President is literally stronger than their love for the country; possibly because in their heart they are not Americans but Globalists, or something even worse & more sinister than Globalists. Either way, thank you.
Thanks, Fraser and Thomas—I really appreciate it. Fraser, you're right—MediaPost used to be a go-to for real marketing insight, but lately it’s drifting into political territory that has nothing to do with the industry. Thomas, your comment hits hard—some folks would rather defend waste and dysfunction than admit someone they dislike might have a point.
What I’ve been pushing back on isn’t politics itself—it’s politics being shoved into business and marketing conversations where it doesn’t belong. I’ve called out Target and Bud Light for chasing activism over customers, and questioned the Tesla hit pieces—not to defend Musk, but because the data shows the issues started with pricing and market trends, not DOGE or who he stood next to. When people call efforts to cut waste “authoritarian,” I point to the fact that most Americans actually support it.
This isn’t about taking sides—it’s about relevance. I’m here for smart marketing, not lectures. Thanks again for backing that up.
John C... maybe, just maybe, the article's author has a female point of view that you do not.
Yes, to many women (outside of the spacey glam squad) this was a negative. A put-down to women. By calling a do-nothing-at-all-flight-of-waste an important event for women.
"Stratospherically tone-deaf"... sums up the press event for me.
"author’s worldview"... is in line with the piece, about HOW IT WAS RECEIVED by the masses.
Bezos' own set up led to the stunt's downfall. Including the inclusion of a frivolus trophy wife (to be). And all within a few hours of the press annoucing the Billionaire couple's intended take over of Venice Italy (in Summer high season) for their own wedding.
Opposite outcome if this had included a non Kardassian-like group of women who were not seeking ego puffing. e.g if MacKenzie Scott was creating grants or scholarships for education that would lead to solving science, medical, atmospheric issues. Or a middle ground... science on how to create less Eco damage (eg falling parts into oceans, pollution on take off). Or research on Cancer... as the cancer to astronauts is VERY different radiation issues than on Earth. That would benefit both Bezos and Musk... as humans cannot travel the distance to Mars without extreme bodily cancer damage en route.
LM, the issue isn’t that the author has a “female point of view.” The issue is that MediaPost, a publication that built its credibility on business, marketing, and branding insight, continues to drift into cultural and political commentary. No one’s arguing that the Blue Origin launch wasn’t tone-deaf—on that point, there’s actually a lot of agreement. It came off as performative, superficial, and out of touch, especially when framed as a meaningful advancement for women in science.
But instead of critiquing it from a marketing or brand execution perspective—which would have been completely on-point—the article veered into a full-blown cultural takedown. It turned a failed PR stunt into a platform for broader ideological grievances, wrapped in sarcasm and name-calling. That’s not a “female perspective”—it’s a missed opportunity to deliver real insight on how brands misuse purpose-driven messaging, misread their audience, and fumble execution.
If the crew had been made up of accomplished scientists, educators, or innovators doing real work, the public response would’ve been very different. That’s a fair point. But again, the job of a MediaPost contributor should be to examine why the messaging failed—not turn every misstep into a referendum on billionaires, patriarchy, or space-age vanity. Readers come here expecting analysis grounded in business relevance. When commentary consistently detours into cultural outrage, it’s no longer delivering on that promise.
Thank you, everyone, for reading and engaging with my commentary.