It doesn't help at all because you've given no evidence that "she’s a soulless amoral social climber," nor is it particularly clear that you'd be privy to such evidence.
Well if you’ve followed her career you’d pick up on this earlier, another richkid media writer that people hate. Rehabbed Ryan Lizza after his sexual misconduct allegations and wound up with a key job at his old magazine. Gee! Sexting a subject she’s covering. Like…this is everything people hate about the Press, rightfully so! Now she’s involved with a hilariously bizarre individual and people are getting their jokes off, this isn’t some guy that got fired from Burger King for not washing his hands this is a highly privileged individual that contributes nothing to society getting got because they’re an arrogant and stupid turd with incredibly poor judgment.
Then I wouldn't need your "helpful" comments, now, would I?
"Rehabbed Ryan Lizza after his sexual misconduct allegations ..."
Given that what's publicly available about the accusations is vague, it's hard to see why this is supposed to be a bad thing.
And you still haven't provided evidence that "she’s a soulless amoral social climber." You're strong on invective and weak on evidence. It should be the other way round.
Personally, no, but that has more to do with me not having a body that one would likely want to see in a state of undress, rather than any moral fortitude.
The mob comes for people every day. Libs of TikTok and other accounts make an entire living out of throwing a spotlight on the moron of the day - often because they've genuinely done or said something hateable. Why should we extend any special charity to Olivia Nuzzi? Lawyers shouldn't sext their clients; lobbyists shouldn't be sexting politicians; journalists shouldn't be sexting their subjects.
I feel like there's a lot of stuff wrapped up in this, so in the interest of clarity here's a steelman of the anti-Nuzzi position:
RFK Jr. is a genuinely offensive person to large swathes of America, and has made himself a public figure at many points, most obviously by running for president, but also by chasing the limelight at various times over his life. He is kinda-sorta still running for president, and is also essentially a Trump surrogate at this point. Therefore, information that is useful in evaluating his judgment and character is newsworthy. Reporters became aware that RFK Jr. was engaging in some sort of relationship with someone other than his wife. Though it appears at this time that the relationship was not physically intimate, it was significant enough for the woman involved to alert her employer; that alone is enough to raise interest, because the consequences to her for revealing the relationship were not to her benefit so we can assume something about the relationship itself was significant despite the apparent absence of actual sex. There is at least one report that Nuzzi hasn't contradicted that this relationship involved her sending nude photos of herself to RFK Jr. Even if this is the extent to it, it seems reasonable to call a relationship "sexual" if it involves the sharing of nude photos and there is not some other context that militates against calling the relationship "sexual."
All of this is relevant to evaluating RFK Jr. himself, and her role as a reporter and a woman in what appeared to be a committed relationship herself is additionally relevant to assessing his judgment. That she is who she is matters for evaluating RFK Jr. himself; you would probably feel at least a little bit differently about his judgment if the woman with whom he had an extra-marital relationship was someone who he'd known for a long time, or was not in a public-facing role, or was not herself compromised by already being in a relationship and therefore having less reason to make this public. It tells you something about a person beyond his moral character that he would take this sort of risk at a time when it could backfire and harm an entire major-party presidential campaign.
Because Nuzzi's name and role are relevant, it is natural that when it is reported people will form an opinion of her as a player in the story, even if many go too far and focus primarily on her, rather than the most newsworthy aspect of the story. When people become more familiar with her, they will then learn that this was an apparent infidelity on her part, which people generally view negatively. If they get curious and dig more, they will learn that the person to whom she was unfaithful despite being in a committed relationship was married at the time she met him, and he left his wife to be with her, breaking up a marriage with children. Again, people tend to view that negatively. All of this information being true, it is fair for them to have a negative opinion of Nuzzi.
The important counterpoint is that it appears that RFK Jr. was--typically for him--particularly gross in how he approached all of this. Sexting with someone who isn't his wife is actually kind of tame for him, and this reminds people who are already familiar with his poor character of how he treated his previous wife much worse, but it's still bad. And then the way he went and threw Nuzzi under the bus over the whole thing is especially galling. Still, it isn't shocking that a man who would sext a woman who isn't his wife would treat the woman he's sexting poorly; cheaters generally aren't respectful of others' feelings or sensitive to their positions. But also, if you have strong moral priors against infidelity, you aren't going to feel very warmly towards Nuzzi over this.
Yeah. The thing that really bothers me about all this is that we've got a man known to be a serial adulterer, and a woman who felt that the relationship was significant enough to tell her boss, but so many people (many of them self-proclaimed feminists) just went straight to "haha look at the crazy lady." It's gross, and stupid besides
In one of the Curb Your Enthusiasm episodes Cheryl Hines was implicated in a possible threesome. Funny how it all kind of circles back. Those Cali types
I really appreciate this take. On social media, Trump supporters (previous RFK Jr supporters) are absolutely wrecking her to take the heat off Kennedy. It's despicable.
If you think it's possible to get the public not to opine on behaviors of public figures, you'd be wrong. The mob is completely irrelevant, people have always opined and will always opine on such matter, you only care this time cause majority disagreed with you. I certainly don't see you defending Taylor Lorenz from any mob. That people shouldn't be angry at a reporter that did an influential piece during election with her connection to the subject now iffy, is weird. I didn't even see anyone do some executioner thing, they were probably more angry the person was RFK and probably wouldn't be if it was any other guy. But not much saying this or that should happen to her so almost no one was playing executioner. Even the few that said something should happen to her didn't go beyond she should be fired which is not far fetched given the action and is exactly what happened.
People comment and opine on what they think should happen or not happen is not some big issue, it's up the the employer to decide what to do but not that people shouldn't opine in groups or something. What's the suggestion here, if i want to talk, check with others to make sure we aren't talking together.
Oh, that she's pretty is also a reason they are angry at her is such a low uninspired take, it might as well be coming from the wokest radical feminist you've ever seen. Lorenz isn't ugly, nor is Brennan especially when they were younger, it would be insane to say the reason people always get their panties in a twist over them is "because they are attractive". It has way more to do with her piece on Biden and their feelings of RFK than "her looks".
The mob came for Nuzzi because she did something controversial, how is that a story or something surprising or a big deal. Oh many people had opinions about a controversial event and subject, oh how surprising!!.
I certainly don't see people hold back with Taylor Lorenz, Judd, Harvard, woke people, pro palestine students and co, that's as much a mob as this one but you don't care for it
People misread something someone they are angry with at the moment isn't that big a story too.
Well she’s a soulless amoral social climber and that turns people off, hope this helps.
It doesn't help at all because you've given no evidence that "she’s a soulless amoral social climber," nor is it particularly clear that you'd be privy to such evidence.
Well if you’ve followed her career you’d pick up on this earlier, another richkid media writer that people hate. Rehabbed Ryan Lizza after his sexual misconduct allegations and wound up with a key job at his old magazine. Gee! Sexting a subject she’s covering. Like…this is everything people hate about the Press, rightfully so! Now she’s involved with a hilariously bizarre individual and people are getting their jokes off, this isn’t some guy that got fired from Burger King for not washing his hands this is a highly privileged individual that contributes nothing to society getting got because they’re an arrogant and stupid turd with incredibly poor judgment.
"Well if you’ve followed her career ..."
Then I wouldn't need your "helpful" comments, now, would I?
"Rehabbed Ryan Lizza after his sexual misconduct allegations ..."
Given that what's publicly available about the accusations is vague, it's hard to see why this is supposed to be a bad thing.
And you still haven't provided evidence that "she’s a soulless amoral social climber." You're strong on invective and weak on evidence. It should be the other way round.
"You wouldn’t ever text a sexy picture?"
Personally, no, but that has more to do with me not having a body that one would likely want to see in a state of undress, rather than any moral fortitude.
I’m as boring as they come and still could relate to, “and if I’d had one more drink, I don’t know what would have happened!”
A lot of us have been there!
🔥🔥🔥
The mob comes for people every day. Libs of TikTok and other accounts make an entire living out of throwing a spotlight on the moron of the day - often because they've genuinely done or said something hateable. Why should we extend any special charity to Olivia Nuzzi? Lawyers shouldn't sext their clients; lobbyists shouldn't be sexting politicians; journalists shouldn't be sexting their subjects.
Did Andrea Mitchell ever report on her husband?
I feel like there's a lot of stuff wrapped up in this, so in the interest of clarity here's a steelman of the anti-Nuzzi position:
RFK Jr. is a genuinely offensive person to large swathes of America, and has made himself a public figure at many points, most obviously by running for president, but also by chasing the limelight at various times over his life. He is kinda-sorta still running for president, and is also essentially a Trump surrogate at this point. Therefore, information that is useful in evaluating his judgment and character is newsworthy. Reporters became aware that RFK Jr. was engaging in some sort of relationship with someone other than his wife. Though it appears at this time that the relationship was not physically intimate, it was significant enough for the woman involved to alert her employer; that alone is enough to raise interest, because the consequences to her for revealing the relationship were not to her benefit so we can assume something about the relationship itself was significant despite the apparent absence of actual sex. There is at least one report that Nuzzi hasn't contradicted that this relationship involved her sending nude photos of herself to RFK Jr. Even if this is the extent to it, it seems reasonable to call a relationship "sexual" if it involves the sharing of nude photos and there is not some other context that militates against calling the relationship "sexual."
All of this is relevant to evaluating RFK Jr. himself, and her role as a reporter and a woman in what appeared to be a committed relationship herself is additionally relevant to assessing his judgment. That she is who she is matters for evaluating RFK Jr. himself; you would probably feel at least a little bit differently about his judgment if the woman with whom he had an extra-marital relationship was someone who he'd known for a long time, or was not in a public-facing role, or was not herself compromised by already being in a relationship and therefore having less reason to make this public. It tells you something about a person beyond his moral character that he would take this sort of risk at a time when it could backfire and harm an entire major-party presidential campaign.
Because Nuzzi's name and role are relevant, it is natural that when it is reported people will form an opinion of her as a player in the story, even if many go too far and focus primarily on her, rather than the most newsworthy aspect of the story. When people become more familiar with her, they will then learn that this was an apparent infidelity on her part, which people generally view negatively. If they get curious and dig more, they will learn that the person to whom she was unfaithful despite being in a committed relationship was married at the time she met him, and he left his wife to be with her, breaking up a marriage with children. Again, people tend to view that negatively. All of this information being true, it is fair for them to have a negative opinion of Nuzzi.
The important counterpoint is that it appears that RFK Jr. was--typically for him--particularly gross in how he approached all of this. Sexting with someone who isn't his wife is actually kind of tame for him, and this reminds people who are already familiar with his poor character of how he treated his previous wife much worse, but it's still bad. And then the way he went and threw Nuzzi under the bus over the whole thing is especially galling. Still, it isn't shocking that a man who would sext a woman who isn't his wife would treat the woman he's sexting poorly; cheaters generally aren't respectful of others' feelings or sensitive to their positions. But also, if you have strong moral priors against infidelity, you aren't going to feel very warmly towards Nuzzi over this.
the story that she was just sending him unsolicited nudes is hard to believe too.
Probably all the more reason not to judge quickly and see how things shake out.
Yeah. The thing that really bothers me about all this is that we've got a man known to be a serial adulterer, and a woman who felt that the relationship was significant enough to tell her boss, but so many people (many of them self-proclaimed feminists) just went straight to "haha look at the crazy lady." It's gross, and stupid besides
The whole situation is giving me second-hand cringe.
In one of the Curb Your Enthusiasm episodes Cheryl Hines was implicated in a possible threesome. Funny how it all kind of circles back. Those Cali types
I really appreciate this take. On social media, Trump supporters (previous RFK Jr supporters) are absolutely wrecking her to take the heat off Kennedy. It's despicable.
I wrote an article on Nuzzi, House Inhabit and the rise of the influencer journalist that you might be interested in: https://substack.com/home/post/p-149298200?r=fwzqm&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
A really nice deep dive into Kraus' reporting on this incident that's pretty fascinating. I appreciate the research that went into this!
Thanks!
I like her writing, I dislike most of what I know about him. So far I have yet to see anything which would change my mind.
If you think it's possible to get the public not to opine on behaviors of public figures, you'd be wrong. The mob is completely irrelevant, people have always opined and will always opine on such matter, you only care this time cause majority disagreed with you. I certainly don't see you defending Taylor Lorenz from any mob. That people shouldn't be angry at a reporter that did an influential piece during election with her connection to the subject now iffy, is weird. I didn't even see anyone do some executioner thing, they were probably more angry the person was RFK and probably wouldn't be if it was any other guy. But not much saying this or that should happen to her so almost no one was playing executioner. Even the few that said something should happen to her didn't go beyond she should be fired which is not far fetched given the action and is exactly what happened.
People comment and opine on what they think should happen or not happen is not some big issue, it's up the the employer to decide what to do but not that people shouldn't opine in groups or something. What's the suggestion here, if i want to talk, check with others to make sure we aren't talking together.
Oh, that she's pretty is also a reason they are angry at her is such a low uninspired take, it might as well be coming from the wokest radical feminist you've ever seen. Lorenz isn't ugly, nor is Brennan especially when they were younger, it would be insane to say the reason people always get their panties in a twist over them is "because they are attractive". It has way more to do with her piece on Biden and their feelings of RFK than "her looks".
The mob came for Nuzzi because she did something controversial, how is that a story or something surprising or a big deal. Oh many people had opinions about a controversial event and subject, oh how surprising!!.
I certainly don't see people hold back with Taylor Lorenz, Judd, Harvard, woke people, pro palestine students and co, that's as much a mob as this one but you don't care for it
People misread something someone they are angry with at the moment isn't that big a story too.