I don't think the article is suggesting that the billionaire owner should intervene directly with a donation. But rather the billionaire owner should accept 200k p/a drop in revenue from WashPo to clear the gap, the resulting hit in reporting would affect his net worth, but only by a minuscule amount.
Right, that's the framing that I don't understand. I'm pretty confident that the cause of pay inequality at the Washington Post isn't people explicitly saying "well, we could pay women and minorities fairly, but we won't do it because Jeff Bezos wants higher profits".
