The Dianna Russini situation is amplifying friction between The New York Times, The Athletic

It might seem odd that the New York Times is leading the way in reporting on the situation surrounding Dianna Russini and the fallout from the Mike Vrabel photos, given that she worked for The Athletic, which is owned by the Times.

But in some ways, it feels like the perfect public airing of grievances between two journalistic enterprises that live under the same roof but play by different rules.

Wednesday’s story in the Times by Katherine Rosman and Ken Belson provided the first real update on the situation since Russini resigned on April 14, saying that she refused to lend the story further oxygen. The Times investigation into her reporting has been ongoing for more than two months, since it was limited, per Front Office Sports, specifically to her journalism rather than her personal conduct, with Athletic executive editor Steven Ginsberg telling staff at a June all-hands meeting it would take “a few more weeks” to complete.

Many of the details were things we already knew, such as Russini’s attempt to squash the New York Post’s salacious story by appealing to Meredith Kopit Levien, the Times Company’s chief executive, for help. But we also learned many new details about the NFL insider’s employment with The Athletic, including revelations that she earned close to $800,000 a year and would FaceTime with NFL coaches to avoid driving infractions.

More than anything, the report drove home the ways in which Russini seemed to operate at the boundary of, or even outside, the “norms” of ethical journalism. It also drew a line between the ways that she and The Athletic rose within the Times ecosystem at the expense of the paper’s storied sports section.

“That same summer, the Times Company announced it was closing the sports desk of The Times, a move that the company said was made to offer expanded sports coverage to subscribers,” read the report. “Many of The Athletic’s stories appear on the homepage of the Times’s website and in its print pages. The Athletic’s Ms. Russini effectively became the company’s top N.F.L. reporter.

“…The tabloid drama stunned the Times Company. Ms. Russini was not just any reporter. The Athletic paid her an annual salary of close to $800,000, according to a former manager who had knowledge of her salary negotiation. This would have made her one of the highest-paid journalists at the Times Company.”

Those are odd bits of information to read in a report by the Times itself, and it did not go unnoticed the way the story framed much of that information.

“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,” wrote Front Office Sports’ Michael McCarthy. “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).”

“‘Dianna Russini Was an N.F.L. ‘Insider.’ Was She Also Out of Bounds?’ is a well-written article, wrote former The Athletic writer Ethan Strauss. “Based on what I’ve known for years, and given what I’ve seen publicly, it’s also turf war by other means.”

Philadelphia radio host Spike Eskin, who previously worked for WFAN, went a step further, 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.”

It has been previously reported that when the Times decided to disband its sports desk and accentuate The Athletic’s coverage (while refusing to acknowledge its writers as union members), some Times loyalists were resentful of what was perceived as lesser standards for Athletic writers despite appearing in the NY Times’ print and online spaces. A 2022 Washington Post report by Ben Strauss noted that Times staffers often questioned the standards at the sports arm and that Athletic writers were told not to identify themselves as working for the NY Times.

The Athletic’s rushed response to the initial Russini photo reveal reportedly exacerbated those resentments, further driving home concerns about how things are handled compared to how the Gray Lady would handle them.

To its credit, the Times doesn’t seem likely to shy away from shining a light on the situation surrounding Russini and the presumptive lax standards around her reporting. However, it’s hard not to feel like some folks at the Times are enjoying this comeuppance as well.