Home
Creators
Search Recent Missing Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Eric Adams; RFK/Nuzzi; Matt in The Nation. (Patreon)

Published:
2024-09-30 02:54:18
Imported:
2026-06
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Downloads

  • 2024_0929_2106-processed.mp3

Missing 2 full-res photos, 1 file, as this post has not yet been imported.

Content

Gang back. Jumbo ep.

Files

Previews only

Comments

TC

It's unprecedented because he's the first sitting mayor charged with a federal crime. While his admin was plagued with scandal, Koch himself was never indicted.

Otto Laakso

Liz should just say "I am friendly with this person so I am going to defend her no matter what" - which she seems to confuse with Christian ethics - rather than make up some bullshit about how a political reporter having phone sex with a presidential candidate is just normal, above board journalistic practice. Like if this is the case, why did Nuzzi lie to her editor about her relationship with RFK Jr. when confronted about it?

Ivan McGillicuddy

"Ms Nuzzi has abuzzied her position at new york magazine"

Tim Masterson

"Ed Coke" *Inglorious Basterds three finger meme.png*

Samuel Stalls
>>150906900

I could not believe what I was hearing, either. Probably the worst take I've heard from them. Defending people they are friends with is definitely a blind spot (Agnes Callard comes to mind as one example).

Anthony Miller

Matt audibly sweating as Liz makes the same argument about Nuzzi as the tablet guy made about Eric Adams

Azmarino

-“Spare a thought” for the woman who violated journalistic ethics and cuckolded her fiancé in public -Don’t “slut shame” the woman who ruined her engagement and another marriage by sending nudes in pursuit of a married 70yr old

Azmarino
>>150922862

You’re juss jealous she didn’t send the nudes to you🥱🥱🥱🥱

Guy Giberson
>>150906900

I am reminded by this post of how Chris Hitchens was savaged by fellow leftists for insufficient loyalty to his friend when he criticized Sidney Blumenthal for attacking Monica Lewinsky. I think that (maybe especially for women, now that I think about it) there really is no winning in a situation like this. If she is a loyal friend, she is a sellout to her journalistic principles. If she criticizes her friend, she is disloyal to whatever social or personal cause she might share with her friend. I defended Hitchens with a response that was (to my surprise) printed in his magazine back in 19-ninety whatever. This time, I think it is consistent to defend Liz for basically the same reason that I defended Hitchens--we cannot expect anything from journalists other than FACTUAL honesty. Our own personal assessments of the personal motivations of their factually accurate reportage is not nearly as interesting and important as the factual honesty, itself. And from everything I can tell, Liz has been factually accurate about everything she's said about this controversy.

Scott Dempsey

Obviously gladwell is a silly guy but the grain of truth in that tiktok is that a lot of academics were into his stuff, at least 10 years ago. Public policy classes assigning "nudge" was a depressing part of grad school.

Terence Smith

The ongoing ethical issue with Nuzzi was that she was assigned to cover the presidential race writ large, a race RFK continued to nominally be a candidate for. She could have disclosed to her bosses and not continued to cover the race, or she could have not pursued a relationship. She's an adult, she can be expected to exercise that minimal level of self control, it's not slut shaming to say you shouldn't be doing this with this *specific person*. She's talented, this won't be career ending, but she's probably going to have to find somewhere else to work.

Caitlin Still

Something that shocked the shit out of me when my FiL died in NYC was seeing for myself how fucken FANCY a US hospital could be. All-fucken-frills. It seems to be because all these individual hospitals are trying to compete with each other through all these expensive little details and I shudder to think of how many people miss out on healthcare just because the US system is so expensive to run. That and a lot of things seem to get gratuitously overmedicalised, like pregnancy and birth (for those who are in the system rather than priced out) clearly in the interest of insurance companies, because we know the US has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the Western world. A typical American seems to really struggle to understand universal healthcare as though paying into insurance isn’t just another more expensive way to pay for someone else’s healthcare. The thing that never gets talked about with universal healthcare is that it is infinitely cheaper overall bc there’s an actual economy of scale: the state-run hospital system buys the supplies, equipment and devices en masse and does a way better deal than individual hospitals buying them in far smaller quantities. I think there is a subset of Americans who just be like, ‘don’t take my fancy healthcare 👺’ even though it’s not actually better. Though to speak to what I know: I will be the first to tell you that free healthcare in Australia is a myth—especially if you’re younger and chronically ill and especially if you have the wrong chronic illness. BUT you will never be bankrupted by an accident, acute illness, or by giving birth. You won’t pay a cent for a hospitalisation unless you elect to through the private system.

Ian H

Yeah I'd take it one step further than Matt and say that in my 17-yr experience in restaurants, almost all of them small businesses, almost *every single one* did some amount of wage theft, be it skimming tips, failing to pay the makeup hourly for tipped employees who don't hit the minimum, salaried managers paying themselves out of the tip pool, etc.

Guy Giberson
>>150906900

Reminds me of what they said to Hitchens. "Say less true things because your relationship comes first." At least when it comes to journalists, I almost always prefer "say MORE true things whenever you have something informative to say."

Guy Giberson
>>150931123

Definitely file this in the "couldn't care less" drawer. All that matters to me as a consumer of journalism is whether I have more or less access to information because of a journalist's methods and practices. That I can tell, Nuzzi did not make any publicly relevant information any less available or accessible.

Samuel Stalls
>>150906900

Surely having a sexual relationship of some form with someone influences your ability to say true things about the person you are covering.

ssalava

Why would hiking in jeans cause more chafing? What chafing occurs below the thighs?

Gina Burton

I admire Olivia Nuzzi as a journalist and feel very bad that this (nonsense) is playing out publicly. I hope this “external investigation” finds no conflict of interest (or whatever would bring her back to NYMag) so she can continue here career. I’m willing to bet that I’m old enough to be a parent to any one reading this. I must say, your “generation” is a very unforgiving bunch. Find some Grace.

Skeleton Key

Damn, the theme song is back. Feels nice.

thebruenigs
>>150906900

Actually probably not. But for reasons that make sense to me I think people should take it easy on her. I can’t really articulate why I feel the way I do because I can’t state my reasons without betraying several confidences. And you will usually find me on the “give them another chance” side of things which I do think feels kinda Christy

haz
>>150931123

while fully understanding that life is complex and it takes two to tango…cheating on your fiancé, who you got involved with when he was married, with another married man, is just destructive and selfish in general. the men deserve just as much blame, but i don’t think it’s slut shaming to judge people who do this as messy. idk, I don’t know her and i hope she makes it out ok but if this were a friend of mine I’d tell them it was messy behavior and they were definitely not acting right

Terence Smith
>>150931123

Yeah I didn't mean to suggest no-one is slut-shaming her. There's an enormous amount of that happening from RFK jr and many others. Most of the online pile-on is genuinely gross.

Samuel Stalls
>>150906900

I don't think this is a "she should never ever do journalism again" level of offense, but it's a pretty clear breach of journalistic ethics that merits consequences for her career. Additionally, I'm a little confused as to why you approached the topic the way you did if you can't share the reasons for your feelings.

Kiwi

Gamergate origins: Zoe Quinn released a video game (Depression Quest) that got good reviews. Quinn’s ex said the reviews were motivated by the writer’s sexual relationship with Quinn (which was a lie). Awful misogyny ensued

thebruenigs
>>150906900

Yeah it’s a breach of ethics and it’s already had consequences for her career. I’m sure there will be more. As always I’m just riffing on what’s on my mind

Jo To

One thing I have learned from this podcast is that people generally will think everyone is a cringe freak unless they're your friend (like y'all with Nuzzi, Callard). Then they need sympathy and Christian charity. Why we can't do that for every other person IDK. I guess this podcast would have a lot less material then

thebruenigs
>>151002756

1.) we're not friends 2.) for the record, i'm for christian charity for everybody, even actual killers. i don't think of myself as a big hater, but if this podcast strikes you as generally hateful except for a few special friends then i'm really disappointed to hear that. that's not what we're trying to produce here.

Guy Giberson
>>150906900

The most recent post by Sam is really a new low on this topic. It roughly translates to: "Please help satisfy my prurient interest about Nuzzi with some juice insider gossip right now, or you're really no better than your slutty friend."

Guy Giberson
>>151002756

One thing I have learned about the comments to this podcast is that some people consider a person's unwillingness to talk trash about someone they know and like to be a bug rather than a feature.

Otto Laakso
>>150906900

Liz, you've said plenty nasty things about a lot of people on this show. Sophie Lewis especially comes to mind - including giving her a hard time for writing about her drug use, which seems very hypocritical now. I'm pretty sure that the Golden Rule doesn't mean you should just be nice to those that are nice to you personally, but nice to everyone always. But maybe you know better. I'm not Christ-like, unlike you apparently

Otto Laakso
>>151002756

This is just dishonest. One of the reasons why people listen to the show is your cutting criticism of people who deserve it. And there's nothing wrong with that, quite the opposite, especially when you are exposing hypocrisy. The problem arises when you're claiming to be pro-labor while siding with NYT management (because James Bennett is just such a sweetheart in person), defending strikebreakers like Agnes Callard (no but she's a friend so it doesn't matter); or claiming to be pro-protestor while refusing to say anything critical about Caitlin Flanagan (she's so funny at dinner parties). It eats away at your credibility. Moral principles are supposed to be universal, if I'm trying to figure out whether someone is doing or saying something wrong, I'm not supposed to consider the variable "is this a friend of Elizabeth Bruenig or not" in order to make a sound judgement, and if you are serious about having a consistent moral values, neither should you actually.

Samuel Stalls
>>150906900

I'll respond to this assuming your comment was in good faith: my point is that if you can't defend a controversial opinion without pointing to some secret knowledge, then it is unfair to the audience. There are a few choices here: 1) not bring it up on the pod, 2) bring it up on the pod and never allude to the secret knowledge, or 3) bring it up and at some point, reveal the secret knowledge. I have ordered these choices in my personal preference of what I think is best. Alternative 3 is a distant, distant third on that list.

Jacob

Don’t let the haters get you down, Liz! I couldn’t give less of a shit what your opinion on Olivia Newsy is; I certainly don’t feel like you owe me criticism of her. I also don’t think you secretly support Netanyahu because you won’t call Caitlin Flanagan an asshole.

Otto Laakso
>>151040332

Liz brought the Nuzzi situation up, no one told her to. Seems like a pretty shitty thing to say that you don't care about her opinion on it when she clearly wanted to share her opinion on it

Jacob
>>151040332

My god, you’re right. I feel horrible, the last thing I would want to is to be shitty to The Bruenigs in their comment section. Liz, I apologize. Thank you Otto.

Sarah
>>151002756

it’s possible to have general principles and still love people who act against them. see: being friends with actual murderers

A.
>>150949053

Disclaimer: I am not a “media person” nor am I familiar with journalist ethics etc The sense I get from (sorry) Twitter, is a split between a couple groups. One group of people that actually are that prudish/unforgiving about it, because they truly believe in the “ethics” of keeping that distance from a source. Then a separate group of people, fellow writers around Nuzzi’s age, that were already annoyed with her as a person. Primarily upset she was given a bunch of attention, access, accolades (30 under 30 for example), over other people they view as more deserving, so they opportunistically jumped on this to justify always being annoyed by her. I had no idea who she was before this scandal, and had to spend more time than I’d like to admit figuring out why everyone on my timeline suddenly seemed to care about this person so much

Sarah
>>150949053

i think there’s also a not insignificant group of people who are just learning of her through this scandal and are enjoying the schadenfreude of “hot blonde woman publicly embarrassed”

Otto Laakso
>>151002756

I doubt the death row inmates Liz befriends defend murder. In fact, I suspect they express deep remorse for what they've done. So a completely different scenario. But if Liz started making up excuses for a murder her friend did, I think that would be fair game to criticize. Or if her friend murdered someone and her response was 'yeah, but they are nice to me personally, so I can't criticize them for their murdering', I think that would also merit criticism.

Jacob
>>151002756

For the record, they defended/were sympathetic to people like Katie Hill and Jeffrey Toobin whom they’re not friends with. And Nuzzi, apparently. I think when someone is in the news for some humiliating scandal their inclination is to feel sympathy. They tend to be cutting about ideological opponents.

thebruenigs
>>150906900

i am sorry for bringing it up on the pod. i'll have matt do a couple solo eps to make it up to you

thebruenigs
>>150906900

i'm not very christlike either, but i am trying. i'm sorry for every time i've been nasty on the show and i'll work on saying only pleasant and uncontroversial things

Otto Laakso
>>150906900

No one here hates you Liz. Some of us just have critiques. I am unnecessarily abrasive, I'll give you that. Need to work on that

Jo To
>>151002756

The basic point that Christian charity and sympathy is not extended to every human subject discussed on the show is obviously true. Plenty of subjects had done less harmful things than Nuzzi and been mocked for it. And I am grateful for it! Thank God y’all aren’t saints because that would make for a boring show! Btw Liz obviously the show is not especially hateful. It’s median or slightly below median.

a.j. archer

"you get to pick your side in real life" so true king

a.j. archer
>>151095728

stirring speech near the end from mr. bru. "why would i look at the ussr when i could look at the usps?" amen brother.

Guy Giberson

Let’s see how many of the bozos on this forum who roasted Liz for refusing to criticize Nuzzi will offer Liz an apology in light of today’s news strongly indicating that her sympathies were not only personally admirable, but objectively well founded.

Josh
>>151109841

I personally believe it’s possible to disagree with Liz without being cruel to her; to deeply sympathize with Nuzzi for the apparent violence and harm being done to her by Lizza; to feel that the way the information about her relationship with RFK reached the public was wrong; and yet also believe that she behaved wrongly as a journalist for continuing to write about presidential politics without, as far as we know, disclosing to her editors or the public the fact of her specific relationship with RFK, which may not at all actually affect her political analysis at all but nevertheless raises the possibility.

Guy Giberson
>>151109841

The considerable ink Josh just devoted to both shaming Ms. Nuzzi for having a personal adult relationship without telling Josh and his pals AND offering Ms. Nuzzi sympathy for the violence and harm she suffered when Josh and his pals were clued in is, well, weird.

Samuel Stalls
>>150906900

Liz, while I obviously didn't like that section of this episode, your podcast is one of the few my cheap ass is willing to pay for and is absolutely one of my favorites. Keep up the good work!

Casey Labrack

Wait how does buying Tysons fix the market power problem? Don't you just have a state owned chicken company with market power? Is it because the state owned Tysons would run at break-even?

Josh
>>151109841

Sorry my response wasn’t succinct enough for you! You’re welcome to offer a counter argument and evidence of where i “shamed ms. Nuzzi for having an adult relationship,” rather than a style critique any time 💛

Christopher McCann

Matt, please do the article on small businesses hostility to benefits. Very hard to organize such workplaces as well.

JohnG

I have said this before, as a longtime fan of this show, and I often get that feeling, that need to say it again. Matt is how we win. We need so much more of Matt thought to be exposed to so many millions more people. I don't know if we need little red books or a lyceum or just youtube videos, but writing policy papers and podcasting and working on labor cases, while amazing and important work, is not enough.

JohnG
>>151306830

"how does buying Tyson fix the market power problem?" It wouldn't, in the short term. It would leverage that market power to fix a lot of other problems. profitability for share holders would not be market directed. The company would not need to operate with any profit incentive, or it could operate with very low profit incentive, as it would no longer be publicly traded on a stock exchange, and motivated to maximize shareholder value or lose money. It would not need to constantly extract more value from labor to create capital for capitalist owners. Yet it would still have that large market share, and the rules of economy of scale as an advantage, but with the added advantage of price controls that allow it to maintain market share, without necessarily needing to grow, giving it more resources to devote to making the working conditions better, which because of its large market share would start to change those conditions across the industry. A state owned Tyson could be used as reserve food security, not bound by market fluctuations, able to feed people in natural disasters, including the expected increase in deadly storms, or any other kind of disaster, without going through the process of private bidding, where lobbying gets high-bid contracts to private industry with little oversight, without needing to profit. Because decision making in the company would be beholden to some kind of committee that does not have profit as its only motive, it would be more beholden to other aims of its workers and the citizenry at large, leading to greater openness to unions, fair labor practices, more environmental oversight, job creation in recessions, and an overall system of sustainable production.

JohnG
>>151002756

@Otto Laakso "This is just dishonest. One of the reasons why people listen to the show is your cutting criticism of people who deserve it. And there's nothing wrong with that, quite the opposite, especially when you are exposing hypocrisy. " I'm not sure how valuable exposing hypocrisy is on its own, not tied to anything else, but I know how valuable approaching the world with an impulse of compassion is, and I'm definitely not someone who does that, and it's something I'm trying to learn from Liz, because it's fucking important. "The problem arises when you're claiming to be pro-labor while siding with NYT management (because James Bennett is just such a sweetheart in person), defending strikebreakers like Agnes Callard (no but she's a friend so it doesn't matter); or claiming to be pro-protestor while refusing to say anything critical about Caitlin Flanagan (she's so funny at dinner parties). It eats away at your credibility. " It's also important to understand that your personal stance on things is pretty fucking useless without any power. Marking people off on your little list of "bad person" is maybe an important thing for your own feelings of self-worth, but it doesn't really do much for any cause you claim to be morally against. Liz saying someone is funny or something they're going through must suck doesn't take any credibility away. It only adds to it. It shows me she is a serious person engaged in a real world, not on social media putting "I support the good thing" in their bio. She's someone who does real work. "Moral principles are supposed to be universal, if I'm trying to figure out whether someone is doing or saying something wrong, I'm not supposed to consider the variable "is this a friend of Elizabeth Bruenig or not" in order to make a sound judgement, and if you are serious about having a consistent moral values, neither should you actually." Again, this feels like something you post on Twitter about your very real and important universal principles that touches no lives and affects nothing. What do your moral principles do to address the issue you supposedly care about, if all you're doing is making lists of people you need everyone around you to say is bad, and then if they don't say the words, you condemn them? Where does this affect anything, except in the liberal circle jerks that occupy so much of our modern discourse?

Bernie Mac

Matt have you heard of the Comparative Welfare Entitlements Project at UConn? Supposedly they have a report that puts Belgium ahead of the Nordics in terms of welfare state generosity

Paul Moyer

got a link for the gladwell tiktok? lol