As expected, Dianna Russini returned to sports media on Wednesday, with a one-hour show hosted by a illegal offshore sports book.
It’s hardly a major concert, but she “crisis publicist” managed to create a lot of buzz – and fix one puff piece with People.com which did not include any questions about the circumstances that prompted Russini’s resignation from Athletics.
In September, New York Post reported that Russini would “share her side of the scandal on getting her next job.” She hasn’t, and she didn’t in the debut episode of her new show.
Technical difficulties delayed the release of the first episode, which was supposed to be live but appeared to be entirely pre-recorded. (The company blamed the glitch on a “record-breaking audience.” Comparable to what?)
After the episode finally aired, it featured three guests (none of whom are current players or coaches), preceded by a segment in which she addressed the future of Ravens quarterback Lamar Jackson. Which, editorially speaking, is hardly the top story in the NFL on the day after the trade deadline.
There was nothing new or particularly profound about Jackson. It was a summary of the facts that anyone paying attention to the situation already knew, with a not groundbreaking assertion that the Ravens want to keep him beyond 2026.
More importantly, the woolly mammoth in the mudroom was not addressed. The main message was that she left for a while, she went through some things and now she’s back. For anyone who doesn’t know the story, she didn’t say anything that would even begin to shed light on it.
If it’s going to be an opinion and interview show, that’s fine. If it is going to involve reporting facts about the NFL, the issue of credibility cannot be ignored.
And this has nothing to do with the relationship (or whatever it is) with Patriots coach Mike Vrabel. It’s about how she responded.
it issued a stern denial when to post published photos of the two at a resort in Arizona. A week later, she abruptly resigned from her post at Athleticscomplaining that “commentators in various media have engaged in self-fueled speculations that are simply without being anchored by facts.”
In the months since she made this claim, she has not shared her version of the facts. In her kid-glove interview with People.com, Russini said “the lying got way out of hand.” Without identifying even one of the alleged lies.
it nothing to see here position was undermined by Vrabel himself, who abandoned his initial position that the initial photos “show a completely innocent interaction and any suggestion otherwise. it’s laughable.” Then it came another set of photosfrom March 2020, which had a distinct know-when-ee-see atmosphere for the specific nature of the relationship. That prompted Vrabel to leave the team for the all-important third day of the draft in order to attend counseling with his family.
So, to this day, Russini’s official position is that it was all a big no-no. Vrabel’s words and the actions make it clear that it was something, whatever it was. (She boat trip video didn’t help much either.)
Beyond the fact that Athletics concluded, after an internal investigation, that “Russini’s relationship with Vrabel was in clear violation e Athletics“The situation creates clear questions of credibility. Put simply and bluntly, can the audience believe what she says?
This leads to the next issue, which has been largely overlooked in relation to her return to sports media – whether an hour-long show hosted by an illegal offshore sports book counts as such. In February, she told the story of being pulled over for texting while driving. She claimed she FaceTimed an actual coach to get her off the ticket. And, based on body camera footage released by local authorities, that claim it was fake.
Forget the relationship with Vrabel. All insiders have compromised their journalistic integrity in one way or another. Audience interests often take a back seat to the broader chess game of getting and staying in position to get “scoops” (which usually come in the form of a five-minute warning before a transaction is announced). Fists are pulled. Relevant stories are overlooked or underplayed. Favors are made for resources.
It is one thing to compromise. It’s another thing to have real problems when it comes to telling the truth. Because the basic premise of anyone engaged in reporting of any kind is that they are always telling the truth.
Even in post-truth America, it’s a standard that should never be relaxed.
Russini’s credibility has been damaged by her denials about the relationship (whatever that was) with Vrabel, and by Vrabel’s actions that undermined her denials. Additionally, casually and inappropriately spinning a false yarn about FaceTiming a coach to get out of a ticket makes it even harder to believe anything she says.
That’s why I said last Saturday at #PFTPM that we will ignore any reports of her until her credibility is somehow restored, if that is even possible at this point. In this business, it would be LOT easy to make assertions and treat them as news from an unidentified source. When someone has not one, but two concrete cases of clear truth-telling issues, it would be irresponsible for us to blindly accept every report from that reporter and use them here.
It’s that simple. People may not like some of the things we report, but the goal at all times is to be completely and utterly honest with the audience. Part of this duty of honesty involves being brutally honest that the word of someone who has, in many ways, damaged her credibility, simply cannot be trusted here.