The tweet above exemplifies one of the lessons of today’s sordid, multi-level ethics scandal (as in “the people involved have none”), andwhich is too rich to ignore. Let me comment briefly and then you write about any ethics issues that interest you, as usual.
New York magazine’s high-profile Washington correspondent Olivia Nuzzi is on leave—she’d better be fired, but in today’s journalism, conflicts of interest are no big deal— after admitting to a romantic relationship with (married) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. while covering his campaign. RFK Jr.’s Wife #3 isto Hollywood actress Cheryl Hines; Nuzzi was engaged to Politico reporter and collaborator Ryan Lizza until recently.
What an incestuous and untrustworthy cabal our political, media and entertainment elites have! But you knew that already, I hope…
Conservative pundit Stephen Miller couldn’t resist tweeting, “I know a lot of people are dunking on @Olivianuzzi right now over the whole Kennedy thing, but as a friend, I’m just thankful that she’s not drowning in the backseat of a car right now.”
Mean. But funny!
Carry on….
Ethics Alarms 
Slap fighting is gaining in popularity. I guess we will always have barbaric sports events.
It’s worse than boxing because you cannot defend yourself. You have to stand there and take the slap full force. At least in boxing you are told to defend yourself at all times. Artur Walczak died at a PunchDown slap fighting event last year or died a few days later in the hospital.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Slap
Not that it addresses the central issue, but the media is apparently hiding that the relationship was purely emotional and “digital”, rather than physical. Don’t have time to hunt back the links right now but will post back later.
The disappointimg part is that even the media when doing the right thing manages to do it wrong by ensuring the incorrect impression is given.
And from a conflict of interest and professionalism standpoint, the distinction doesn’t matter anyway….
The NY Post isn’t hiding it, at least. The linked articles quotes Nuzzi saying it wasn’t physical. And as our host said, still unethical.
I was hot under the collar when Kate Mara’s character began a relationship with Frank Underwood in order to get information. It was bad enough that Hollywood would have a serious reporter do such a thing – but viewing any profession through a Hollywood lens is just asking to be deceived – but she looked like a teenager to me. Through her entire run on the show, I would make jokes about her having to go get her bicycle or call her Mom first.
And, again, do the Kennedys not have the most warped priorities when it comes to relationships? Perhaps, we need them to stop running for office to not only rid the nation of this dynasty, but also to motivate them to develop healthier marriage habits to pass down to their offspring?
Doing this sort of thing while in the middle of a campaign is classic Kennedy arrogance. Talk about sick family cultures…
Post Gary Hart, this type of behavior is 100% self-destructive. Pathological. What a stupid thing to do.
Does Olivia Nuzzi think she is a judge or something? But seriously, this just seems to be normal behavior for our ‘ruling class elites’. Revelations like this seem to come out every week, Dr. Jay Varma admitted to hosting drug-fueled sex parties and going to big dance parties while he was banning gatherings and working during COVID and, of course, making it ‘really fucking hard to be unvaccinated’ in New York City. A CIA agent seems to have been drugging and raping women in government apartments for 14 years. Peter Strzok and Lisa Page had an affair and a conspiracy to ‘stop Trump’ and were paid $2 million for that being revealed from the texts on their government phones. We had a governor of New York have to resign because of a sex scandal…sorry two recent governors of New York have had to resign because of sex scandals. A NY House Rep had to resign due to a sex scandal and was found to have classified State Department documents on his laptop, possibly because his wife was very, very close to Hillary Clinton and working for the State Department and a lobbyist to the State Department simultaneously. It just goes on and on. During the Trump administration, it looked like every FBI and DOJ official had a spouse who worked for the Russian or Chinese government. If they didn’t, they were sleeping with a Chinese spy or employing Packistani spies to handle tech support for their computers.
Gee, I wonder why the ‘Drain the Swamp’ call resonated with people?
Ann Althouse doesn’t seem to think this is newsworthy or a big deal. What the hell’s the matter with her?
The money quote from The London Times article Althouse quotes (The London Times?): “The magazine [New York Magazine, Nuzzi’s employer] said a review of Nuzzi’s work had found no evidence of bias….” Surely you jest. New York Magazine’s editors and writers wouldn’t know bias if it walked up to them and punched them in the face.
Bingo. That magazine’s reports are spectacularly biased.
I just read Althouse’s post. The way I read it, she said there wasn’t enough information given in the articles about the exact context of the texts to determine if it was newsworthy or just New York Magazine taking a shot at Kennedy to hurt him without any real substance.
I know. And she’s wrong. The reporter admitted a relationship. That’s a conflict.
Lizza’s fifty and Nuzzi is thirty-one. Lizza was fired from The New Yorker for some Me Too allegations. Stick to chicks your own age, Ryan. Grow up. I think they’ll be less likely to embarrass you than a thirty-one-year-old will.
Gotta love the double Zs they share in their last names. I assume ZZ Top was booked to perform at their erstwhile wedding reception?
Does Amanda Cook of LA Times Crossword Puzzle fame read Ethics Alarms? You be the judge; to wit:
08/29/2023 (I’m behind) 46 Down:
Clue-Defiant Retort (6 letters)
Answer-BITEME
PWS
She might also be a fan of Mystery Science Theater 3000.
So here is some interesting data. While I was doing some research on the Mark Robinson affair, I happened on some polling numbers from the Carolina Journal. They were looking at Trump v. Harris as well as the NC legislative outlook (the issue there is whether Republican can maintain their supermajority, or a mere large majority).
Anyway, here is what they reported: Trump leads Harris 45.6 to 45.3, with 3% going to the minor party candidates, and 6% undecided. That is not surprising. But they also ask likely voters whether they were definitely or probably going to vote for a candidate.
The breakdown there: Trump 43.1 definitely 2.5 probably, total 45.6%.
Harris – 38.7 definitely, 6.6 probably, total 45.3%
Certainly the support is firmer for Trump than Harris, not terribly surprising.
What blew my mind was the same breakdown for the legislative ballot. The question there was ‘would you vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate for the North Carolina legislature.’
What gets reported is that the GOP is narrowly ahead, 46.0 to 45.6%.
But the same breakdown is fascinating: GOP definitely 39.7, probably 6.3 total 46.0%
Democrat: Definitely 6.7, probably 38.9, total 45.6%
What the heck does that mean? I have no idea,
Of NC registered voters, 36% are unaffiliated, 34% Democratic, 30% Republican. That tells me Republicans tend to win the majority of the unaffiliated voters.
That last point doesn’t surprise me. I think the plurality (if not the majority) of non-affiliated voters are small-L libertarians, who don’t fully agree with either party but are embarassed by the Libertarian Party clown show.
It used to be that libertarians could count on the left for protection of civil liberties and non-interventionism, and on the right for smaller government and deregulation. But since the left has gone full Orwellian, most libertarians are de facto Republicans for the time being.
Here is a fun quiz about presidents — Jack you’re banned 🙂 from participating since I’d wager a significant amount of something precious to me that you have the answers on the tip of your tongue.
————–
On this day in history in 1881, the third president to serve during that calendar year was sworn in. Who were they?
It only happened once before that we had three presidents serve in a calendar year: Can you name that year? Bonus points if you can also name the three men.
————————
According to the history.com article I am citing, that first president in 1881 said that the third president’s term was best known for “liquor, snobbery and worse.” (Jack, you can opine on this, except I’m pretty sure I know your feelings).
Just a little light hearted presidential trivia to brighten your day.
My guess,
1881: xxx, then Garfield (assassinated), then Arthur. I can’t recall who preceded Garfield, and I won’t cheat.
1841: Van Buren, Harrison, Tyler
Nicely done! 5 out of 6 is very good, I would say.
The other president is the man who by most accounts lost to Tilden in 1876 but was elected by Congress — Rutherford Hayes. He also provided the impetus for the now infamous Electoral Count Act of 1887 that has provided the basis for the several challenges we’ve had over the last 60 years.
When I was first memorizing the list of US Presidents, one trick was thinking of Grant-Hayes-Garfield as the bearded trio in the all-facial hair sequence between A. Johnson and McKinley. Grant’s and Garfield’s beard were similar: Hayes has the worst Presidential beard ever, though B. Harrison is a close second.
I am often struck, looking at Civil War generals, at how … enthusiastic … they were about beards. Watching Gettysburg again really brought that home.
I’ve got to say that Longstreet’s beard there has to be the neatest huge beard I’ve seen in quite a while.
Hayes! My mind was totally blank on him. I was fixated on Benjamin Harrison and couldn’t get away. I should know all the Presidents in order – at one time I did – but I jokingly tell people, “My brain is completely full, so when something new comes in, something’s gotta go!”
The 1841 trio were top of mind, as I just finished Donald Cole’s bio of Van Buren and recently purchased Leahy’s (reportedly excellent) bio of John Tyler.
Tyler is a fascinating figure.