The New York Times’ extensive report titled “Dianna Russini Was an N.F.L. ‘Insider.’ Was She Also Out of Bounds?”, written by Katherine Rosman and Ken Belson, thrust former NFL insider for The Athletic Dianna Russini’s controversy involving New England Patriots head coach Mike Vrabel back into the spotlight.
However, according to Front Office Sports’ Michael McCarthy, the article also raised questions about the relationship between The Times and its sports subsidiary, The Athletic.
Why the NYT Story on Dianna Russini May Have Carried a Message for the Athletic
In his column on Front Office Sports, McCarthy argued that the Times’ report “raises a slew of fascinating questions,” including whether it was intended to indirectly pressure The Athletic amid its internal review of Russini.
After initially defending Russini when photos of her and Vrabel at an adults-only Arizona resort surfaced in April, The Athletic executive editor Steven Ginsberg later announced that the publication would conduct an internal review.
More than two months later, The Athletic has yet to publicly announce the findings of its review. The timing of The New York Times’ bombshell report may have suggested the newspaper was running out of patience with its sports subsidiary, per McCarthy’s sources.
“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,” McCarthy wrote.
BE THE GM OF YOUR FAVORITE TEAM: PFN’s FREE NFL Mock Draft Simulator
McCarthy’s report also cited reactions from several media personalities who suggested that the NYT report revealed tensions between The Times and The Athletic following the newspaper’s decision to fold its sports coverage into the digital outlet after its $550 million acquisition in 2022.
Former NBA Athletic writer Ethan Strauss, in his Substack, described the article as reflecting the “simmering one-way beef” between traditional Times journalists and their newer colleagues at The Athletic.
Radio host Spike Eskin reached a similar conclusion, writing on X that the article contained “few if any new or interesting details” about Russini herself and instead appeared to express “disdain for The Athletic and the staff and management.”
PREDICT THE NFL SEASON: PFN’s FREE NFL Playoff Predictor
McCarthy then pointed to several details emphasized in the Times investigation, including Russini’s reported salary of nearly $800,000, criticism of The Athletic’s oversight, and the revelation that company executives declined interview requests from their own newspaper.
The Times also reported that Russini sharing the story on a podcast about FaceTiming an NFL head coach to avoid receiving a traffic ticket amounted to “unacceptable conduct,” according to company spokeswoman Danielle Rhoades Ha. The report added that Athletic editors were unaware of the podcast appearance because Russini “neither sought nor received permission to appear on the podcast, as required by company guidelines.”
The newspaper further noted that The Athletic had launched a review of Russini’s reporting before she resigned, writing that “rather than wait for the results of her employer’s review, Ms. Russini resigned.”
Neither The New York Times nor The Athletic has publicly indicated that the report was intended to pressure executives internally.
It remains to be seen whether Russini will get another gig as an NFL insider after the scandal. Recently, PFSN’s NFL analysts weighed in on what’s next for Russini and whether she will work in the industry again.
