Dan Le Batard addresses criticism over lack of Dianna Russini coverage

Dan Le Batard has run into trouble in recent months for continuing to criticize fellow sports media figures over their blind spots or ethical breaches while he has largely refused to address the shocking scandal between NFL reporter Dianna Russini and New England Patriots coach Mike Vrabel.

The pushback reached a tipping point this week when Le Batard panned ABC’s Michael Strahan for the way he handled an interview with NFL legend Chris Johnson, who announced his ALS diagnosis on Good Morning America.

While Le Batard argued Strahan should have asked Johnson about what impact he felt his football career had on his condition, others felt the question would have been insensitive or poorly timed. Beyond that, many online drew attention to Le Batard’s limited response to the Russini scandal as evidence that he has also sidestepped tough conversations when it suits him.

In a follow-up Thursday on his show, Le Batard acknowledged that criticism is “fair” but also doubled down on his complaints toward Strahan, arguing it is more urgent for an interviewer to ask pressing questions than for a commentator to sound off about a scandal.

“I think a lot of criticism of me in general is fair,” Le Batard said. “And this allows me to actually go back for a second and talk about some of the Dianna Russini stuff. Because I know that this is something that people are now holding up whenever they think I’m sanctimonious or doing anything that they find an opening to criticize me on. They’re like, ‘You’re being a hypocrite here, you weren’t willing to talk about that.’

“I wouldn’t say it’s hypocrisy, I would say it’s inconsistent if you want to call me that. I would also say it’d be apples-to-apples if Dianna Russini was across from me and I wasn’t asking her any of the questions you want to know about. Because I believe, in an interview, the responsibility that the host has is, first and foremost, to the audience.”

Later, Le Batard became more defiant.

“I don’t say this, actually, with ego, but I do say it to defend my position,” he said. “I haven’t done everything I have done professionally in my life to get to this point in my life and have anyone or anything dictate what I say, how I say it, or what I’m saying it about. Including whatever you think journalism standards are, or whatever I think journalism standards are.”

Le Batard recalled tough reporting he did around former Miami Dolphins running back Ricky Williams as an early-career lesson of the cost of reporting private details about someone he had become friendly with.

“It’s fair criticism to say, ‘Dan, you should talk about Russini.’ It’s a consequence of me saying, ‘No I will not.'” Le Batard said.

“Because everyone is saying for me how wrong it is. You don’t need me adding to that pile of criticism to make my friend’s life a little bit worse. And if you want to criticize that, totally understand. Consequence, price, tax on doing business. You want to hold it against me for the rest of my life, totally understandable. I make my decisions with my convictions, I live with them, there are consequences.”

Le Batard added that he understands the difficulty of seeing Johnson struggle in the interview with Strahan and the instinct to let Johnson share his story on his terms. But he reiterated that he was not “ripping” Strahan, and believes there could have been a sensitive way to ask Johnson about the role football may have played in the deterioration of his health.

The most prominent example of a media colleague leveling the accusation of hypocrisy toward Le Batard came last month from WFAN’s Craig Carton, who took issue with Le Batard’s recent back-and-forths with Boomer Esiason over politics. In a long rant against Le Batard, Carton noted Le Batard’s hesitancy to discuss Russini, as well as former cohost Jon “Stugotz” Weiner, on air.

While Le Batard may have a point about the differences between Strahan doing a sitdown interview and him merely weighing in on Russini, the broader point is about authenticity. Strahan ignoring the link between football and ALS comes across as protecting the NFL, while Le Batard is clearly and openly protecting Russini. The distinction matters very little in the scheme of a media ecosystem that increasingly values authenticity above all else, including journalistic ethics.

Especially given that Le Batard went so far as to initially defend Russini, suggesting she was mistreated on the basis of her gender, perhaps Le Batard would be more effective simply demanding a response from Strahan about why he approached the interview the way he did, same as Le Batard gave about Russini, rather than trying to dictate the way Strahan ought to do his job.