There’s a lot of stuff in the New York Times article about Dianna Russini. We’ve addressed several items and angles that appear in the very lengthy story.
Every time I skim through it again, I notice something else that merits a mention.
Here’s one that relates to the manner in which Russini responded to the news that the New York Post had acquired photos of her and Patriots coach Mike Vrabel at a Sedona, Arizona resort.
Despite coordinating with Vrabel (which the Times article confirms), Russini waited two days to alert her bosses. The first call, however, was made not to her immediate supervisor, but directly to Meredith Kopit Levien, the CEO of the Times Company.
“You’ve got to call Steven and David,” Levien said, a Times Company spokeswoman told the Times. Levien was referring to Steven Ginsberg, executive editor of The Athletic, and David Perpich, publisher of The Athletic and vice chairman of the Times Company.
From the Times article:
“The chief executive ‘had no other involvement after that,’ said the spokeswoman, who declined to make Ms. Levien, Mr. Perpich or Mr. Ginsberg available for interviews. . . . When The Athletic executives learned about The [New York] Post’s intention to publish the photos, the deadline for a response was just a few hours away. The executives were unaware that The Post had first contacted [Russini] two days earlier.”
Ginsberg, who was on vacation at the time, went into “deadline mode.” From the Times article, “A person involved said it felt difficult to imagine that there could be any truth to what the photographs seemed to be insinuating: that The Athletic’s star [NFL] reporter was entangled in a personal relationship with one of the most prominent people on her beat.”
The article explains that Ginsberg saw “at least one of the photos” that the Post would be publishing before responding to the situation; there’s no explanation given as to why he didn’t see all of them. Ultimately, he provided the Post with a statement supporting Russini, based on incomplete information.
“These photos are misleading and lack essential context,” Ginsberg said in his statement to the Post. “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.”
Once the Post published all of the photos, The Athletic changed its tune — at least internally.
“More photos were included in the story than Steven was originally shown or was made aware of,” the Times spokeswoman told the Times reporters. “The photos that ultimately ran raised new questions about Dianna’s conduct.”
Implied but not expressly stated in the Times article is that Ginsberg saw only the photo(s) that Russini had shared with him. Once Ginsberg saw the full array of photos published by the Post, things changed.
Which means that, if Ginsberg had seen all of the photos before issuing his initial statement, his initial statement may have been very different from what it was.
The entire chain of facts, as spelled out in the Times article, is a bad look for both Russini and The Athletic. She waited too long to sound the internal alarm. When she did, she went over the head of her first-line boss. Then, she possibly failed to give her boss all of the photos.
For Ginsberg’s part, he took her strong denial at face value. And he did nothing to ensure that he saw all of the photos before vouching for Russini.
Then, once Ginsberg saw all of the photos that the Post published, neither Ginsberg nor The Athletic said anything to correct the impression his statement created. Even though, based on the Times article, seeing all of the photos significantly changed the assessment of Russini’s conduct.
As it relates to the internal investigation that The Athletic continues to conduct regarding Russini’s reporting, Ginsberg becomes an even more central figure. Did he have any reason to suspect potential breaches of the very high editorial standards that apply to the Times and The Athletic? Did he act on those suspicions, or was he content in the knowledge that Russini’s methods were yielding results?
That’s the heart of the tension between the Times and The Athletic. For the Times, how the information is obtained becomes as important (if not more important) than the information itself. For The Athletic — especially as it relates to the NFL insider role — does the method take a back seat to the product?
