'I agonized over it': Behind the scenes with the reporter who uncovered the RFK Jr./Olivia Nuzzi story

• One of the country's most high-profile journalists says she had a "personal" relationship with RFK Jr.
• Now Olivia Nuzzi is on leave from New York magazine, where she's written many buzzy political stories.
• It's a staggering story — and a huge scoop for Oliver Darcy, a former CNN media reporter who struck out on his own last month.

Even in a year full of jaw-dropping political news, this was a jaw-dropper: Olivia Nuzzi, New York magazine's star political journalist, is on leave after the publication learned she recently had an inappropriate relationship with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — the former presidential candidate who now supports Donald Trump.

New York said Nuzzi's behavior is "a violation of the magazine's standards around conflicts of interest and disclosures" and apologized for what it called "this violation of our readers' trust." Nuzzi subsequently apologized for not disclosing her "personal" relationship earlier. Neither Nuzzi nor New York names RFK Jr. specifically, but neither of them has disputed reports spelling out that he's the person they're talking about.

The news is also huge for the journalist who broke the story: former CNN media reporter Oliver Darcy, who left the news channel in August and launched Status, his own one-man newsletter operation. Since then, Darcy has had a string of high-profile scoops — but none of them come close to the impact this one has had in the media world.

(Stand by for multiple disclosures: Darcy formerly worked at Business Insider; I worked for Vox Media, the company that owns New York magazine, from 2015 through 2023; Vox Media now produces and distributes my weekly "Channels" podcast.)

I asked Darcy about the story's significance and for an update on his newsletter business, which is barely a month old. Here are edited excerpts from our conversation.

Explain to a normal person who does not spend a lot of time thinking about media why this is a story.

It's a journalism story because it presents a conflict of interest. Olivia is one of the most high-profile journalists in America, and she arguably wrote one of the most consequential pieces of the 2024 campaign, which was about what she called the conspiracy of silence to protect Joe Biden. And given that readers did not know that this relationship was ongoing with RFK, it raises questions about conflict of interest, because RFK has been an active participant in the 2024 campaign.

So that's why it's a story. It's not because she was having a relationship with someone; it's because it presents thorny issues for the magazine, and for her, in terms of, "Was her reporting being influenced by this relationship?" She's saying it wasn't, and it might not have been. It may not have been at all. But at least at the very minimum, there's a perception issue here. And so that's why it matters.

It's hard to overstate her influence in American politics. This is someone who has interviewed Donald Trump, for instance, multiple times, including for a story published earlier this month. She's arguably one of the most high-profile magazine writers in the country.

Did you have any qualms about pursuing and then publishing the story? Was there any part of you that said, "I know this is important, it's important for journalism, but it's also people's private lives. Maybe this doesn't need to be a story."

I agonized over it. Because I approach stories, or try to at least, as a human being. And I know that this would have a lot of consequences. I also know Olivia, and I've known her and I disclosed this in the story — I've been friends with her for many years.

So, for those reasons, it was not an easy story to publish. But it is a story, and I believe that these things do matter here. It's also my job.

Any big story that I've ever done, it's always something that weighs on your conscience quite a bit. Even in other stories that I've done where I am not as sympathetic to the person involved, it's still difficult to publish a story that you know is going to have enormous consequences for someone. I don't take it lightly at all.

After you put out your story and New York magazine put out a statement, Nuzzi put out her own statement, which might change the way people perceive the story. She said she didn't have a physical relationship, but there was communication. Did you know, prior to publishing, that this was her version of the story?

I knew that there was an inappropriate relationship between the two, and I printed everything that I was able to print at the time.

If it turns out that she really wasn't having a physical relationship, and that it was something else, does that change the significance of the story, and what might happen?

I don't think so. I really don't. I think that, as she said, this should have been disclosed. And as New York magazine said, I think they're taking this pretty seriously. She wouldn't have been allowed to continue covering the presidential campaign because of this. So I think it's still a very big deal.

This is also the biggest story you've published since you launched, correct?

This is definitely the biggest story since we launched.

How's the new business doing?

Really well. The response to it has been great. A lot of people subscribed right away. But scoops also drive readership, and so that's why I've been trying to get some of those.

How many readers do you have? How many subscribers do you have?

I really don't want to disclose at the moment, but I'm happy with it.

How is life different doing this 100% on your own, as opposed to doing it mostly on your own, but at CNN?

A lot of it's the same because it's the same work I was doing at CNN. But you do lose some infrastructure and you do lose a little bit of that support system. It's a little more challenging when you're on your own and you're not as part of a giant machine, especially when reporting a story as complicated as the one that we're talking about.

Since we're having a media business conversation now: I was surprised when you launched that you made this a subscription product. Obviously, there's been a big move in media to subscriptions over the years. But the thing you were doing before was free. There is lots of media journalism out there that is for free. Why did you decide to make this a paid product?

I need to run a business. And I think people should pay for journalism they think is good.

I would love it if there was a way to put good journalism out there for free. And I think we're really seeing, even with outlets like CNN about to launch subscription products, that the only real way here is to charge money for the journalism because it's very expensive.

Just for me: I have to pay for Getty Images access. I have to pay for legal insurance. I have to pay for a website infrastructure. I have to pay all these things before I even get to pay rent. So this stuff is expensive, and if you want to support good journalism, I think you should pay for it.

And it's really the way that I can tell readers that this is 100% an independent product. They're supporting my independent voice, and so if they want to do that, then they will have to pay for a subscription.

To tie all this together: Do you think last night's scoop is going to generate more subscriptions for you? Could you see people subscribing in real time last night?

Obviously, yes. You could see people subscribing in real time.