The New York Times’s lengthy new story on Dianna Russini doesn’t provide many answers on what happened between her and Patriots coach Mike Vrabel. But it sure raises a slew of fascinating questions.
Among them: What the hell is going on between the “Gray Lady” and The Athletic, which was purchased by the New York Times Co. for $550 million in 2022. Why won’t the New York Times answer questions from the New York Times? Is The Athletic’s investigation of their former senior NFL insider finally a wrap? When and how will Russini tell her side of the story?
Let’s unpack this:
Payback Time for the Times?
The shotgun marriage between the venerable 175-year-old newspaper and the 10-year-old digital startup has been awkward at best. But the latest report on Russini gives the impression that there’s still resentment within the Times over executives disbanding the paper’s iconic sports department in 2023 and outsourcing its sports coverage to The Athletic.
To me, the Times’s deep dive carried more than a whiff of condescension toward the standards and decision-making at the paper’s corporate sibling. As well as a healthy dose of snobbery toward Russini, who is portrayed as a brassy, ethically-challenged loose cannon unworthy of the fawning attention of upper management (note the repeated references to her starring role for the company at last year’s Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity).
Start with the Times reporting Russini was making “close to $800,000” annually, making her one of the “highest-paid journalists at the Times Company.” That wasn’t exactly news. Ben Strauss of The Washington Post (now at ESPN) reported she was making more than $700,000 back in 2023. It’s nothing compared to the $9 million salary for ESPN’s top NFL insider, Adam Schefter. But the $800K figure was sure to go viral at a time when the Times Guild is currently bargaining for a new contract—and sports journalists are being laid off left and right by The Washington Post, Sports Illustrated and other outlets.
As Times reporter Trip Gabriel noted on X/Twitter Wednesday: “The Athletic, owned by The Times, was paying a reporter close to $800,000. No wonder the Times Guild is … arguing in fierce negotiations that the company can afford to give its staff fair contracts.”
Another point: The Times doesn’t come to any conclusions about whether or not Russini and Vrabel had an extramarital affair. But the story made sure to include a heavy-breathing graph noting the New York Post photos caught the duo “relaxing in a hot tub at an exclusive Arizona resort and hugging and interlacing their fingers on a rooftop that could be reached only through one of the hotel’s private suites.”
The culture war between the stuffy New York Times and upstart Athletic is no secret in media circles. Ethan Strauss, who previously covered the NBA for The Athletic, believes the story is more about the “simmering one-way beef” between established Times journalists and the new kids on the block.
Radio host Spike Eskin expressed a similar opinion on X/Twitter, writing: “LOL the New York Times thinks they’re slick. This article is not about Russini at all, as there are few if any new or interesting details. It’s an article where NYT reporters express their disdain for The Athletic and the staff and management.”
Investigation Finally Wrapping Up?
The Athletic has been investigating their former star reporter’s work for more than two months. As soon as the Times story entitled, “Dianna Russini Was an NFL Insider: Was She Also Out of Bounds?” dropped on Wednesday, several sources told me they thought this was the Times sending a message for The Athletic to stop dragging their feet and wrap up a probe that’s making both media brands look bad.
The story, for example, highlighted The Athletic’s lack of oversight of Russini. The anecdote she shared on a podcast about Face-Timing a cop’s favorite NFL coach to get out of a ticket amounted to “unacceptable conduct,” says a Times company spokeswoman. But her bosses at The Athletic didn’t know about it because she “neither sought nor received permission to appear on the podcast, as required by company guidelines.”
The Times also goes into detail about how Athletic management seemingly bungled the Russini crisis from the beginning. First, Russini’s bosses believed her explanation that she was on a girlfriends trip to Sedona, Ariz., where the initial photos with Vrabel were captured. Then Steven Ginsberg, The Athletic’s executive editor, issued a ringing public defense of the “premier journalist.” But as more information and photos emerged, The Athletic was forced to backtrack and order a review of her work. When Russini resigned on April 14, Ginsberg had to explain himself to staff by issuing a note saying “it was our instinct to support and defend a colleague while we continued to review the matter.”
And how about this tidbit? When Russini was first approached by the Post to comment on the salacious photos, her first call did not go to her bosses at The Athletic. Instead, she reached out to Meredith Kopit Levien, president and chief executive officer of the New York Times Co., who sent her back to The Athletic. To top it off, the Times reports The Athletic was in negotiations to re-up Russini’s contract just as she was photographed in a hot tub with the reigning NFL Coach of the Year. In short, the story depicts an Athletic management team that’s been a day late and a dollar short from the jump.
“There’s always this question: Does The Athletic follow the same sort of ethical guidelines as the New York Times does?” Tom Jones, senior media writer at Poynter.org, told Front Office Sports. “You would like to hope that they do. But I wonder if the Times thinks that they do. That’s a big question.”
As for the investigation, Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk says his “big picture assessment” of the Times story is that The Athletic is “very close” to issuing the results of its Russini inquiry. “The article in the Times is essentially the appetizer,” writes Florio.
On June 16, a Times spokesman told FOS the Russini investigation was still “ongoing.” He did not return an email seeking further updates on Wednesday. But sources warned it’s only reviewing her journalism, not her personal conduct.
Why Is The Times Stonewalling The Times?
It’s always tough when reporters have to cover their own company. I’m sure the Times reporters on the story, Katherine Rosman and Ken Belson, did the best they could. But the most awkward part of the story is when the Times declined to answer questions from itself.
Despite noting the Russini-Vrabel “tabloid drama stunned the Times Company,” management at the parent company and The Athletic all declined to be interviewed. Notes the story: “The Patriots did not make Mr. Vrabel, 50, available for an interview and did not respond to specific questions. The Athletic and the Times Company did not make their executives available, either.” Interesting. Isn’t that the kind of stonewalling that the Times would condemn if they were investigating another corporation or government agency?
The story also mentions that The Athletic is looking into Russini’s role in brokering another story by Zack Rosenblatt titled “Inside Mike Vrabel’s Year Off.” But when the Times reporters reached out to Rosenblatt, the Athletic senior writer didn’t respond to a message seeking comment. So much for cooperation by corporate siblings.
When Will Russini Tell Her Side of the Story?
The story quotes an unnamed “friend” of Russini who speculates she may be done as an NFL insider. “Ms. Russini’s friend said that she resigned because she saw an opportunity to reimagine her career and spend more time with her children.” If that’s so, the next shoe to drop will be when and where the 43-year-old finally tells her side of the story.
As the Times piece well illustrates, Russini is an entertainer with a flair for the dramatic. Florio thinks she could literally overshadow the NFL’s Patriots-Seahawks season opener on Wednesday, Sept. 9, by sitting down for a bombshell interview the night before.
“That would throw a hell of a wrench into the Week 1 game between the Patriots and the Seahawks,” warned Florio on PFT Live.
The awkward relationship between the Times and The Athletic could perhaps be best summed up by the end of the article, in which a reporter texts with Russini, who later indicated her comments weren’t intended for public consumption. The article notes that Russini’s request to keep the messages private “demonstrated a different approach to journalism from the way that it is conducted in traditional newsrooms.” Read into that what you will. In his Substack column, Strauss writes, “the implication is clear: This woman was never a real journalist in the manner we are real journalists.”
As for the content of the messages, Russini referred to herself as a “former journalist,” further indicating she’s preparing for a new phase of her career. Time will tell what that looks like. But even as this story has quieted down in recent weeks after dominating the headlines throughout the spring, Wednesday’s report served as a reminder that it’s far from over.
