Report: Staffers have concerns about The Athletic’s response to the Dianna Russini situation
As The Athletic investigates the Dianna Russini/Mike Vrabel situation (with Russini being essentially suspended without it being called a suspension), some facts are emerging regarding the internal reaction to the situation.
Natalie Korach of Status reports, via Sam Neumann of Awful Announcing, that staff members within The Athletic and its parent company, the New York Times, have concerns about the publication’s P.R. strategy.
One unnamed source called the companies’ handling of the matter, per Korach, “unnecessarily messy.” Another unnamed source, per Korach, objected to the initial statement from The Athletic executive editor Steven Ginsberg, which was loud and clear and devoid of any mention that an investigation had already begun. The source called the approach “reckless,” “premature,” and “intentionally sneaky.”
Said Ginsberg, in his initial comment to the New York Post upon publication of the photos: “These photos are misleading and lack essential context. These were public interactions in front of many people. Dianna is a premier journalist covering the NFL and we’re proud to have her at The Athletic.”
Even if the initial statement resulted from an aggressive and unequivocal denial by the reporter, it made no sense to push a narrative that, based on the photos, may not have been fully accurate. That said, The Athletic was in a tough spot. Saying nothing would have said plenty. Telling the full and complete truth would have given credence to the notion that the reporter’s aggressive and unequivocal denial may not have been fully accurate.
The best response may have been some version of the truth. Something like this: “We have seen the photos. We have received the reporter’s explanation. Given the high editorial standards that apply to this publication, we are reviewing the situation.”
It’s a wrinkle that makes it even less likely, in our view, that Russini will return to The Athletic before the expiration of her contract. It reportedly expires in August 2026. It may lapse even before that.
Either way, the contract was already in the home stretch. The easy out is to let it expire and move on.
Internally, other reporters with The Athletic and the Times may expect something more clear and definitive. Some may believe, rightly or wrongly, that the situation impacts their own credibility. Others may simply want an unmistakable message sent within the organizations as to what will or won’t be tolerated, given the very high bar set by the New York Times.
However it plays out, it’s been a little clunky so far for The Athletic. That makes it even more important for The Athletic to stick the landing in a way that will create the right impression externally and, more importantly, internally.
