- Joined
- May 8, 2002
- Posts
- 1,194,481
- Reaction score
- 59
Last week's lengthy article from the New York Times about former New York Times reporter Dianna Russini opened with her story about FaceTiming an NFL coach in an effort to get out of a ticket for texting while driving.
It was treated as gospel truth by the Times, which added a statement from a spokesperson for the Times Company labeling the creative effort to avoid a ticket as "unacceptable conduct."
The bodycam footage shows that Russini’s story was not true. And it raises a few fair questions regarding the effort of the New York Times to investigate Russini's journalism.
First, why didn't the Times get the bodycam video before publishing the Russini article?
Adam Herbets of the Center Squaregot it. The New York Times essentially got caught flat-footed.
On one hand, it was plausible to take Russini at her word. She freely admitted to doing something she shouldn't have done. Why would she lie about that?
On the other hand, there was a pre-existing reason to be skeptical about anything she said, given her response to the initial Sedona photos with Patriots coach Mike Vrabel. She waited two days to alert her bosses, she supplied a strong and arguably strident statement that was later undermined by photos taken in March 2020 — and by multiple comments from Vrabel himself — and she possibly didn't give her immediate supervisor, Steven Ginsberg, all of the photos before he crafted and issued a strong statement of support for her.
Then there's the basic curiosity that should drive all journalism. If the Times was going to make the FaceTime story the hook for a long article about Russini, shouldn't the Times have wanted to find out which coach, if any, was contacted?
Second, why hasn't the Russini article been corrected? As of this posting, the original item has not been revised to indicate that the bodycam footage has surfaced, and that there was no FaceTime.
The New York Times, in its Ethics in Journalism handbook, says this: "Accuracy is the foundation of our credibility, so carefully checking facts is a fundamental responsibility of every staff member. It is our policy to correct our errors, large and small, as soon as we become aware of them."
These questions should only add to the lingering tension between the New York Times and the Athletic. Much of the internal consternation regarding Russini's relationship with Vrabel (whatever it may have been) traces to the perception within the Times that the Athletic operates under a looser set of rules. If the Times article about a former Athletic reporter was the product of a looser form of journalism, well, that's awkward.
Hovering over this latest wrinkle in Russini-gate is the looming release of a report of the internal investigation conducted by the Athletic. What will it say, or not say, about the situation that was deemed to reflect "unacceptable conduct," now that the full truth — to date unacknowledged by the Times — has come to light?
We could find out soon. The best time for a midsummer bad news dump is coming soon. The Athletic could be releasing the results of its investigation just in time to get lost in the hard reset of July 4 weekend.
Continue reading...
It was treated as gospel truth by the Times, which added a statement from a spokesperson for the Times Company labeling the creative effort to avoid a ticket as "unacceptable conduct."
The bodycam footage shows that Russini’s story was not true. And it raises a few fair questions regarding the effort of the New York Times to investigate Russini's journalism.
First, why didn't the Times get the bodycam video before publishing the Russini article?
Adam Herbets of the Center Squaregot it. The New York Times essentially got caught flat-footed.
On one hand, it was plausible to take Russini at her word. She freely admitted to doing something she shouldn't have done. Why would she lie about that?
On the other hand, there was a pre-existing reason to be skeptical about anything she said, given her response to the initial Sedona photos with Patriots coach Mike Vrabel. She waited two days to alert her bosses, she supplied a strong and arguably strident statement that was later undermined by photos taken in March 2020 — and by multiple comments from Vrabel himself — and she possibly didn't give her immediate supervisor, Steven Ginsberg, all of the photos before he crafted and issued a strong statement of support for her.
Then there's the basic curiosity that should drive all journalism. If the Times was going to make the FaceTime story the hook for a long article about Russini, shouldn't the Times have wanted to find out which coach, if any, was contacted?
Second, why hasn't the Russini article been corrected? As of this posting, the original item has not been revised to indicate that the bodycam footage has surfaced, and that there was no FaceTime.
The New York Times, in its Ethics in Journalism handbook, says this: "Accuracy is the foundation of our credibility, so carefully checking facts is a fundamental responsibility of every staff member. It is our policy to correct our errors, large and small, as soon as we become aware of them."
These questions should only add to the lingering tension between the New York Times and the Athletic. Much of the internal consternation regarding Russini's relationship with Vrabel (whatever it may have been) traces to the perception within the Times that the Athletic operates under a looser set of rules. If the Times article about a former Athletic reporter was the product of a looser form of journalism, well, that's awkward.
Hovering over this latest wrinkle in Russini-gate is the looming release of a report of the internal investigation conducted by the Athletic. What will it say, or not say, about the situation that was deemed to reflect "unacceptable conduct," now that the full truth — to date unacknowledged by the Times — has come to light?
We could find out soon. The best time for a midsummer bad news dump is coming soon. The Athletic could be releasing the results of its investigation just in time to get lost in the hard reset of July 4 weekend.
Continue reading...
