I see what you are saying but I dont agree - the author is knowledgeable in financial terms and business, but is still parroting the CEO.

I suppose I’m just triggered on what feels like years of news-pieces being marketing pieces for established companies.

I would think if the author is well versed in financial speak, they would challenge (or omit) the positive spin the CEO is trying to push here?

The positive spin was removed, and that's also why everyone reading can pick it up so fast. If it wasn't so well written, another author would had just said that DO has plans to be profitable.

When the CEO said "profitability" to the reporter, he challenged it by putting as "loosely". The reporters is informing us, but also making it a point that the CEO alleges something that is not consensus can be considered profitability, he is impartial in displaying the information, but making it clear it's sketchy. It's great writing actually!

Thank you!

Journalists tend to report on what they see, not editorialize. So no, they don't call people out... they just report the words that are said and rely on the reader to put in the critical thought, often giving them a lead in doing so with parentheticals like the one in this article. That is also why completely asinine quotes get shared frequently... not because the quote is good, but because it is not, and they want to give it to their readers at face value and let the readers draw their own conclusions.

Strong disagree - the only reason you know that he's not just talking about profitability is because the author pushed the CEO.