The Press Box - Dianna Russini Resigns From The Athletic

Episode Date: April 15, 2026

Today on The Press Box, breaking news: Dianna Russini resigned from The Athletic. So Bryan was joined by Joel Anderson and Nora Princiotti to give their reactions to the resignation and discuss what they think could be next for Russini. Before the news broke, the trio recorded a whole other podcast about their thoughts on the Vrabel-Russini story (16:39), and they discussed what it’s like being a woman in sports media (54:30) and what the point of sports insiders is in today’s media landscape (1:04:19). Hosts: Bryan Curtis and Joel AndersonGuest: Nora PrinciottiProducers: Bruce Baldwin, Isaiah Blakely, and Jamie YukichAdditional Production Supervision: Conor Nevins Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hello media consumers, Brian Curtis, Joel Anderson, and Nora Prenciotti here. What you're about to hear is a two-part podcast. Part one was a long and hopefully interesting discussion about Diana Rossini, Mike Frable, and the Perils of Insiderdom. Part two is our reaction to the news that just broke. You're going to hear that now. Diana Rossini has resigned from the athletic as of Tuesday afternoon. Nora, what's your first reaction? I'm sad.

Even, you know, I think we can say that maybe there were things that were pretty clearly done wrong here. And I say that even just about the existence of the photos that started the whole thing, regardless of what they actually represent. And this can still be a bummer. This can still be someone who's done a lot of good work who, you know, is a representative of women. in a particular type of NFL media and also just this seems painful and unpleasant basically for everyone involved. So I think there are things about this that have been titillating since the jump and I have mostly tried to kind of resist those,

but I think we all fall into it in moments. And then once the real consequences start kind of coming out, you just go, oh, man, stinks. You guys want to look at her letter that she sent to the athletic and just tweet it out here. I'll read a couple of paragraphs. She says, and she's writing to Stephen Ginsburg, who's the executive editor of the athletic,

Rossini writes, when the page six item first appeared, that's the item that appeared last Tuesday, the athletic supported me unequivocally, expressed confidence in my work and pride in my journalism. For that, I am grateful. In the days that followed, unfortunately, commentators in various media have engaged

in self-feeding speculation that is simply unmoored from the facts. Moreover, this media frenzy is hurtling forward without any regard for the review process the athletic is trying to complete. It continues to escalate, fueled by repeated leaks, and I have no interest in submitting to a public inquiry that has already caused far more damage than I am willing to accept. She continues, rather than allowing this to continue, I have decided to step aside now before my current contract expires on June 30. I do so not because I accept the narrative that has been constructed around this episode,

but because I refuse to lend it further oxygen or let it define me or my career. So she's clearly saying I do not admit anything. I don't accept anything that has been put out there about me, but I'm resigning. And not even I'm resigning because I've created the impression of something bad, which for a journalist is its own complication. It's not that. It's, I'm resigning because there is a media feeding frenzy and that's destructive enough in and of itself and therefore.

What are the repeated leaks? I, he refers to. Paused on that phrase too. Yeah. I'm a little uncertain as to what she means by that. Now, I do think there is a media and social media frenzy going on out there that is mostly attached to, prior clips of her on podcast talking about her husband, right?

Or instances and clips where she's made reference to Mike Vrable or something that would have reflected upon him favorably. But in terms of like leaks, I haven't seen that. There's not a lot. Yeah. I actually feel like the thing that I've seen, the comment that I've seen be the most prominent in terms of how the rest of sports media has responded to this is like everybody's awfully quiet because nobody really wants to engage with how much of this is about the nature of insiderdom, how much of this, you know, if a certain type of lens was turned on other

reporters about how they conduct themselves, they might not like the consequences of that. And also people have personal relationships and it all feels icky and maybe a little bit vulnerable. And so therefore there are plenty of spaces that feel or seem even actually really reluctant to go there. But maybe, I guess my guess would be it's there was that, um, there was a story that I think we mentioned earlier, uh, when we were recording that there were people at the Athletic in New York times

that were unhappy about the nature of the initial statement from Ginsburg, which like, that doesn't, how many people read that story, how many people cared? Like I doesn't seem like it really rises to the level, but I guess maybe it's that. Yeah. All the reporting from inside the times in the athletic were like people were concerned or people

are concerned. Like yeah, no kidding. Of course they're concerned about a huge story like this. And of course they're concerned when the executive editor puts out a statement seeming to defend the writer or even exonerate the writer. And then a couple of days later, they learned that the athletic is reviewing her work or reviewing her statements and that she's not writing. anymore. So yeah, I mean, I think, but I agree with you, Nora, if anything, people were waiting, right?

People were sort of approaching this fairly carefully rather than jumping out, at least in terms of byline people rather than just people on Twitter. One reason that the only comments or remarks I've made publicly about this was on our show on Thursday, partially because, yeah, I think that you don't don't want to get out over your skis on something like this. It is a serious accusation, both personally and professionally, to make against someone, right? And we're not, we didn't, we still really don't have a lot of facts, but I guess there's enough conjecture that people feel comfortable making, you know, forming an opinion on this. But also, you know, there's a, I was talking, we were talking about this off here a moment ago. And I don't know why I'm being so

empathetic to Diana. I don't know her. I've never met her, never spoken to her. I don't think it's a great look for her as a reporter. But I think there's something that is like overwhelmingly as, you know, group chats fill up and tweets are going off about this. I feel like the wrong people are titillated here. I just don't like that. I don't like how excited people are about this and I don't, I would argue that people are not concerned about ethics and journalism here. You know, that they're just excited about the hint of sex and lies and the opportunity to be sexist and whatever else. I do not think people actually care about what it means for the journalism here. I'm willing to be wrong about that, but that's how I feel. I think in the aggregate,

I think that is true. I do have something else I'd like to read to you guys, which is Stephen Ginsburg's post from athletic slack. Again, Ginsburg being the executive editor of the athletic, because we're, of course, waiting to hear from him too or just waiting to hear some kind of comment from that organization. He writes this, when this situation was brought to our attention last week, there were clear concerns, but we received a detailed explanation, and it was our instinct to support and defend a colleague while we continued to review the matter. As a additional information emerged, new questions were raised that became part of our investigation. So what he's saying there is, okay, our knee-jerk reaction is, our colleague says this is

untrue. We then defend our colleague. But then new questions were raised that became part of our investigation. So part of what we're going to find out, hopefully over the next few days, what those questions were exactly. Right. Presuming that everybody looked at the same photos from the New York Post. Everybody heard the explanation that eventually wound up in the New York Post. What changed from the athletic

and the New York Times' point of view that then started this inquiry? And he says in the next sentence, by the way, that that inquiry is still going. We will continue a standards review of Diana's work that Mike Semmel is leading. Now, whether that's a review of what happened in Arizona

or we're going to look back at all her bylines and try to determine if, you know, if any of these bylines we now find wanting, I don't know. I also don't know where, what that investigation could actually yield at this point, especially since recinctu doesn't work for the athletic anymore. Yeah, I mean, I guess I've been in situations before worked at places where somebody got fired for, you know, whatever sort of ethical breach. And they kind of had to wrap it up, right?

Like, it's just you're, you're trying to be responsive to your subscribers and, your readers or whatever and say, all right, we did try to get to the bottom of this. And I guess maybe it's more imperative after you came out so strongly defending her right now. It's like, all right, like, let's take this seriously and see if it impacted her reporting in any way. But yeah, what a, what a bummer, man. Like you said, no, I just, this just kind of, I don't know, I don't know how people could be excited about this or feel good about this. You know what I mean? The one thing, most of this is, you know, she makes it about the media frenzy and not about,

I've done something wrong and therefore, and there's not a lot of specific denials. The one thing that she does say is, you know, I stand behind every story I have ever published. You wonder how that factors into if they are doing the version of that inquiry. That's to go back through every byline and try to stress test it in some way. will say like given the nature of some of these stories that seems very hard to do it seems hard to me that to imagine how that would yield any particular revelation going through stories that were informed in large part or entirely by anonymous sources right well tell me this is he going to tell you who the sources were now so that you can do a thorough

audit of all these story? Why would you do that? Well, not even that. What if, okay, let's just say that the anonymous source is Mike Vrable. You know what I mean? Like, does that make the story any less true? You know what I mean? I mean, I guess it's like how you got that information, not really excited about that. But if Mike Vrable head coach of the New England Patriot said something and she uses it in a story, what do you do with that? It's a good question. Yeah, I don't know the answer to that. It's a good question. It's a good question. It's a good question. I was say, you know, whenever we have somebody who does care about ethics and journalism, or at least, you know, I'm paid to do that for this podcast. I always say that whenever there's a story like

this, my biggest gripe with anybody, and again, it remains very much in the alleged zone with Diana Rossini. But my, my, the one thing I always come back to is the most important thing you can do is level with readers. And that basically covers everything a journalist can do. It covers what is at least being intimated here, if not proven here. It covers all the little things, Insiders do, which we get to later in this podcast, got two in round one of this podcast, you got to level with readers. That's the thing. So when you talk about, you know, let's say information came from Mike Braywell, what did you do with?

Well, I would just argue if there is something, I would just argue you have to level with readers. And readers should know, you know, about your relationships with people. They just should or allege relationships with people. That's what I come back to with this. I want to ask you guys one more question. what does diana russini do next look the predictable thing right is to wind up at a barstool at a place where certain types of breaches are a little bit less disqualifying and lean more heavily into personality dumb than insider dumb i guess man yeah how many other places so it is This barstool and what else?

Outkick? Is that? Because we're basically, we're talking about the Jason Whitlock Chitlin circuit. You know what I mean? Like, where you're not, you're not, you're no longer in the realm of the, you know, the $700,000. You don't appear on NFL network or the Dan Patrick show, that kind of stuff.

Like there's like, there is a, you know, a little run that she can go on. But how many places out there like that? And the thing I would think about is, Are those the people, if you come to them in this sort of situation, do you really want to work with them? Like, are they going to, which sort of care are they going to exercise as co-workers and employers if you go to them? But I mean, I guess, you know, you got to work too. But the other thing I'd put out there is just the substack. I am an NFL insider who's working for myself rep. Plausible. Start a podcast. You write for substack. You write for yourself. I mean, you know,

The thing in here she says, I'm not going to lend this any more oxygen. But obviously people aren't going to stop talking about this. Yeah. I mean, also resigning probably makes it at least in the short term, an even bigger story, if anything. So it's just really interesting, too, because I was talking about this, or thinking about this a little bit earlier about the difference between this and politics. Because I can run off a list of people.

I mean, I really could name their names. I'm just not going to do that because I don't think that's fair or kind. Those stories are in the past now. Who've had relationships with people on Capitol Hill? And in fact, it is a huge part of Capitol Hill culture for a reporter that have been dating somebody that works at a campaign or somebody that works for a congressperson or whatever. Like, that is just the nature of the beast. And sometimes they tell their bosses, right?

And some of these people and stories that I'm referring to in the past, they made their employ. are where I've got a relationship with this person. They're sort of adjacent to this and then they work it out or whatever. And I mean, these are, those are issues of real national and global import, you know, but we just kind of seem to accept it. And in sports, it's just kind of, you know, I mean, again, it is not cool to do what is a late, what people are suggesting, intimating here, right? Like, if that's the way, because I don't think it's fair to everybody else's

is competing. I don't think it's just right for the other, you know, the reputations of other people around you, they go to bat for you, whatever. But it is just sort of interesting to me that, like, in political journalism, we just kind of like, it's kind of how the sausage gets made. And in sports, it's a, this is a huge big deal, man. I mean, there's very few, it's not Luca level in my phone today, but a lot of people sent that text to me today, you know? Absolutely. I mean, God, to describe how much this is being talked to DeNora's point earlier about the low, relatively low number of big media bylines about this versus the number of texts.

Versus the number of people weighing in behind the scenes. And I haven't checked my phone since this pod started, but I'm sure all of us have dozens more waiting for us. Okay. That's our reaction to the news of the day. Now here are longer conversation about all these matters starting right now. Hello, media consumers. Welcome to the old press box.

It's Brian Curtis. It's Joel Anderson. It's producers, Isaiah Blakely and Bruce Baldwin. Joel, we're joined by a very special guest today here at the press box. Diana Rini. No. Oh, good guess. Our guest is a ringer writer.

She is one of the hosts of the We're Obsessed podcast and the Every Single Album podcast. she covered the New England Patriots beat in less complicated times. Nora Princeati, welcome back to the press box. I'm not sure they were entirely less complicated. They were pretty complicated in some moments. Different complications, perhaps. Different complicated times.

Nora, we brought you on to talk about Joe Biden's forthcoming memoir. No, we brought you on to talk about the story that's burning up our text chains. Diana Rossini, Mike Vrable, and the perils of NFL insiderdom. I won't accuse you guys of this, but I think I joked to you both offline that I turned on Boston Sports Radio the other day. And the first thing I heard was one of the hosts say, well, here's a text from a woman. And so if I can provide that kind of, if I can be the analogous text from a woman here, I'm glad to do it. Oh, man. Yeah, we really did call in, didn't we?

We really did call it. What a lifeline you've provided for us, North. Thank you very much. Glad to do it. Glad to do it. So this is a conversation that has been largely conducted on Twitter, minus a few odd podcasts here and there and a few reports with actual sources from the athletic. So we sit here, Nora, on Tuesday morning.

Where are you on this story right now? You know, I, the specific, um, utility and also the psyche and the state of insiderdom is something that I really have a tendency to enjoy getting a bit philosophical about. So I think that is the angle that even if it is in some ways less juicy than some others that pertain to this story, that's the one that I keep kind of circling. I also think it's one that is really, maybe this is the coward's way out. it's easy to latch on too because it's a little bit less thorny to talk about than some of the others

where, you know, we sit here today. And as you said when you guys did your pod last week, there are things that we just don't know that make this difficult to talk about and to draw conclusions based off of. So, yeah, I guess how this plays into the role of the insider in our current media environment is where my head's at. It does feel like Think Peace Island, doesn't it, in this story? My favorite place. Because you could just raise your hand, like, I don't know what happened, but I had some concerns about insiders.

Well, it raises a lot of questions. It really does. Things I've been thinking about long before I read the page six story. And by the way, we're going to get there on this podcast. We will be in a first class cabin on the way to think peace island. But first, I wanted to go back to something Jody Walker said to you on a pod the other day, which is we shouldn't assume that everybody knows who everyone is in the story. And maybe it's useful to just walk people through the career of Diana Rossini so that people understand who she is and what her place is in sports writing right now. Diana Rossini was a college athlete at George Mason.

She worked in local TV jobs coast to coast. Gets to ESPN in 2015, initially, mostly as a sports center anchor. she joined the NFL team at ESPN shortly thereafter. And then one way to think about her career is this. There are tears of NFL reporterdom at ESPN. How would you guys explain the tears? We agree like Schefters at the very tippy, tippy top of that, right? Like everything goes through him.

He's, you know, if anybody's doing any sort of break. news about the league, you probably have to have to go talk it over with him and verify it with whatever his sources are, whatever, right? And then there's like secondary folks, right? There's sort of the national folks. There's the, because I think it's the, it's the individual beat reporters. I forget if they still use the terminology, ESPN NFL Nation, where everybody's assigned. And then there's the tier where it's sort of the, the fowlers and there's some scoopage going on. It's not necessarily like the reporters will have teams that they focus on,

but they'll have a handful of them. There's definitely some scoopage going on. It's a little bit less. You are breaking news every day. And then there's Schefter. And then sort of adjacent to that, there's more personality people who might end up having a scoop a few times a year. But I feel like it's sort of those three.

and then more personality-driven stuff that's adjacent to that. That middle tier is so interesting because it's like you're still an NFL reporter. Maybe you even still hold a microphone and stand outside a stadium on the pregame show. But we, ESPN, meaning we have other plans for you. It's like Courtney Cronin's in that tier now. You mentioned Jeremy Fowler, Jeff Darlington's at the Masters last week. Like we're figuring out other things for you to do in the ESPN universe. Maybe that's you come on get up frequently.

Maybe that's, you know, you do a little hosting here and there. That's kind of where she was. And it's funny, I found a press release from 2021 that ESPN sent out when they resigned her to what I think was her last contract there. And they were talking about all the things she'd done at ESPN. And one of the things they congratulated her for was getting an interview with, wait for it, Mike Frable right before the AFC championship game. Oh, man.

Because that's a CBS game, right? So here's somebody at ESPN who's trying to figure out ways to bring value to the network besides just, as I said, holding a microphone there. Oh, you got Vrabel before the game. There's even a picture of her in that press release standing in the stands Vrabels down on the field and she's going to talk to him. Those are the kinds of things you do to get ahead. So then Diana Rucini eventually hits the question. Sorry, go ahead. Can I ask you a question? So help me out for a second because, you know, I've worked at ESPN, but why would you, I thought SportsCenter, like obviously I must be coming at this with the mindset of somebody who is

a Gen Xer. But I thought being a Sports Center anchor was one of the things you aspire to. I obviously know that it's not, you know, it doesn't have nearly the same sort of glamour or prestige that it used to have. But leaving SportsCenter anchored them to cover the NFL, to me that it best seems like a parallel move. Did that change? Like, when did that, how did that change? She gets there in 2015, I think SportsCenter is very on the wane by that point. You know, that used to be like, right, the big bullpen of funny, talented people that were going places. Yeah.

Craig Kilbourne. You know, whatever. Yeah. And I think you could argue now that the NFL is the bullpen there where you're going to get chances to do things or, as it turned out with her, like, prove yourself that you can go somewhere else and be a big star in that universe. She does come to the question of what else can I do here at ESPN, right? We mentioned Schefters in the top spot.

As the insider, we put Laura Rutledge in that conversation hosting NFL Live too. Rassini said this after leaving. She said, it really came down to recognizing at ESPN. I wasn't going to change roles. There was no elevation there for me based on my conversations with the company. They did not have a vision outside of what I currently do. So in 2023, she went to the athletic. And Nora, would you say she was kind of in the,

I don't know if the Adam Schaefter role is exactly right, but she was the prime NFL newsbreaker and reporter full stop at that place? Well, so yes and no. And this is what I think this is what's sort of odd and fascinating about this element of it is yes, in the sense that she was top dog NFL newsbreaker, which is analogous to the Schefter roll. On the flip side, she's going to a place where your medium can't be tweets and TV hits. it has to be written articles. And so to some extent,

that can be serviced by, okay, you have a transactional report and then the beat writer for whatever team pertains to can flesh it out about, you know, if it's a team X is signing a player,

that beat reporter can say, what does this mean for the roster? And then that can be a story that goes on the athletic website. But also there's an implication that some of the stories are going to be a little meatier than that, I think. And that was what she wound up doing. I mean, if I think of the stories at The Athletic that I remember Diana reporting,

it was being part of the Aaron Rogers has a wish list for the Jets story. It was, hey, look, you already know the Jets are a mess, but they're an extra mess this time because Brick Johnson is in the draft room talking about Madden rating. And it was more recently, I mean, this one didn't quite rise to that level, but it was the piece after the Vikings and Kwameh dofamensa parted ways or he got fired, sort of talking about the philosophical differences and some personality tensions that had existed in that team, including the fact that he had asked to go on paternity leave.

And I'm sure you guys remember That was a whole like That was three days of discourse Talker Yeah In NFL world And so those are slightly different types of stories Right?

That's not hey I'm hearing that The that the Rams are eyeing defensive tackle in the first round It's a slightly different breed And I think I feel like I don't know if I'm doing revisionist history here But I feel like you could tell

When she got there That that was supposed to be what she was driving for. It's a classic athletic story, isn't it? A thing happened, and we're going to give you the inside scoopage behind the thing with exactly 3.5 memorable anecdotes per story. This happened yesterday with Doc Rivers left the bucks. Like Eric name the next morning is like, the buck's season from hell.

It's like, all right, we got it. The box has been checked. Well, Brian, I mean, don't you, I mean, you call those. And you can tell me if you're making a distinction. the oh now they tell a story. Is that, I mean, is that basically what it is? There are some fine distinctions in the now they tell the story, but let's call that the genre generally speaking.

Okay, all right, yeah. All the things. But a lot of times, and partly Norris talking about this too, there is unexpected news. Like a thing happens. It's like, oh, the Jets were a mess this year. What can we find out about this? What's wrong?

The Jets missed the playoffs for 14 straight years. Oh, wait, Woody Johnson is relying on Madden ratings. He's getting filtered through his sons. one of whom is named Brick, which is just amazing. And that was an amazing story. I was going to say. And you're right. She would have, and often those would be like multi-byline stories.

Another funny thing that happens when she goes to the athletic, and I know you guys remember this, Peter King decides to devote a couple of paragraphs to his column to Diana Rossini. This was Peter's last year on the NFL beat. And I just want to read this to you because this was just, speaking of a talker, Peter King wrote, this move. this move, meaning Rossini to the athletic, doesn't make traditional journalism sense. To think Diana Rossini will almost certainly make more money than Maggie Haberman or David Brooks, Times Legends, and crazily might earn more than them combined is a sign of the strange sports journalism times we live in. Stars who cover the NFL make crazy salaries compared to the money people make covering news that truly matters. It really centered the salary portion of it in a way that I found a bit bizarre.

Peter was not underpaid at his various stops. And it's weird. It's hard to explain to people, but ESPN, at least at one time, paid so far outside of the normal range of journalism jobs, that it's kind of hard for people to comprehend it to get their head around, right? Like, I mean, at the New York Times, a columnist like, you know, David Brooks, Charles Blow, whatever, I mean, that's making six figures. But, I mean, there's people sitting on panels at ESPN that are making seven figures, right? Like, that are not athletes. And that's just that's the industry norm or it was at one time.

And so if you leave ESPN and, I mean, you know, I mean, you've got to first, you got to try to create an opportunity that makes it feel like this is something I can sing my my teeth into. It's something that is like equivalent or better. Like I'm getting to, you know, spread my wings a little bit. But also, I mean, you're not going to take an 80% pay cut just to fit in with your coworkers. You know what I mean? Like you're going to have to make a pretty good salary. And if they're willing to give it to you, yeah. But like, out of context, it sounds like, wow, Dan Rossini, you know, made $700,000, but it's like, shit, man. Like, that is, you know, mid-tier money at ESPN. Just the apples to oranges of invoking David Brooks, really.

I assume the answer to this one way or another is yes. But does Peter know how much Maggie Haberman was making at the time? Like, I doubt it was a million dollars, but I don't really know. You know? So that's a very valuable reporter for an institution. It's just the tone of that still to this day strikes me as bizarre. I just loved learning who was on Peter King's, Peter King's New York Times, All-Pro Team. Maggie Haberman and David Brooks.

David Brooks, man. Won't someone think of David Brooks? But you're right, Nora, that did center her salary, which became this thing on Twitter and in responsible media as well. Ben Strauss, formerly of the Washington Post, reported that Sharm Shurani was making between $607,000 and $700,000 and $700,000 at the athletic, and that Diana was making more. So there's that. Right. That's a thing that was reported out there.

We mentioned Diana's a writer at the Athletic. She was also a podcast guest inside the athletic at her own Podscoop City. And then in the outside world, the Lebertard show, Pardon My Take. This is part of the gig now that you go on podcasts and you have fun with the hosts. How did you guys think those podcast appearances playing now? Because we've seen a whole bunch of them on Twitter ever since a page 6th, came out. Well, I mean, I think, you know, I've been thinking about this the past few days because a lot of us, and I, you know, I came through the business as a reporter, a journalist, right? And you

don't really want people to know what your name is. You kind of want your, the headlines and the stories you write to be what you lead with when people think of you. But if you're going to get into that world, you've got to entertain in a way, right? And so you're going to tell jokes. You're going to be a little bit more jocular. You're going to be loose. And you're not thinking. about the day that you're going to be in page six when you're doing all this, right? Like, it is a well-worn trope that people, lots of people in media use their spouse is somebody like sort of a foil in their jokes, right? It's like, ah, you know, my wife is going to really come down on me or my husband,

you know, he doesn't give a shit about what I do or whatever. But when you, and it's just a way to make yourself sort of relatable and, like, to be sort of self-deprecating or whatever. But it's like the day that you end up on page six at TMZ, people can use that against you and say, oh, there are all these signs here. And I mean, maybe there were, but nobody is thinking about that. And so, like, it's just a part of having to make yourself a brand, a personality. And that's kind of what I've been thinking about this.

I felt really bad for Diana because I was like, damn, man, there's no way that she thought it was going to come down on her like this. All these jokes that people were going to tally them up and be like, you didn't respect your husband from the jump, you know? Well, and she's in a way, like, she's good at it. She's, I think we've all, I said this when Jody and I talked about this on we're obsessed, but I suppose I should mention it here too. Like, I've met Diana several times as a, I really like her.

Like, she's a really compelling person to be around. She's really funny. She's sort of like, just has an energy to her. I totally get why something that makes her really good. good in those podcast spaces and in those places where you sort of have to prove it's not just about having the goods as a reporter but it is also about being a good hang like it makes all the sense in the world to me that of all of the reporters many of whom go into you know a pardon my take environment or lebitard and they just don't seem fun enough to be there to be blunt about it like

she totally stands out in that way and like like like. Like I've always really liked being around her. That's sort of irrelevant. But like I get why she has thrived in that kind of space. Have y'all been on Lebertad before? No. I haven't. Right.

So I've been on there two or three times. Right. And again, I was a person that listened to the Lebertad show every day, starting from the decision, right? Like from the decision. And then I listened to Dan when he was on ESPN on Sundays to ESPN radio on Sundays. So I was a big fan. You go on there. And you're like, when you get an audience with Dan, you'd be a fool not to think, man,

Bommani, Mina, Pablo, Sarah Spain, you know, all these people who've gotten a chance to sort of get elevated to a whole other world of media and a whole other salary classification, you got to put on a good show when you go on with Dan. And I went on twice, the second time, I think he got so frustrated at me that he never let me. I did not perform well, apparently. And I got a little mad back at him, too. I was like, well, damn, I'm fucking, you know, you're asking me this question.

I'm trying to answer it anyway. But the whole point of it is that you feel like you've got to put on a show. And some people are much better at that than others. And you're right, nor other. Like, I've known who it's not like I keep up with the NFL reporting all the damn time, but I knew who Diana Rossini is more from that world than I did from like the NFL stuff she was doing. This is what the business is now. We say this from inside the ringer podcast network.

You're a reporter, you're a writer, but you're also a lowercase good hang. Go on a podcast. You can have fun. You can hang in there with the host. You can laugh at the jokes. You can make your own jokes. You can get them back. This is the currency of the world that we live in now, the media world we live in.

And as you say, Joel, she was working in that world long before any of this story was ever going to see the light of day. The story in question was in the New York Post last Tuesday. Rossini and Mike Vrabel were photographed at a resort in Sedona called the Ambiente. They were shown in a hot tub, a broad hotel hot tub to use your words, Nora from her pod the other day. Some reason that just made me smile. Shown hugging, shown fingers interlocked. Both Rossini and Vrabel denied to the post that anything untoward it happened.

Frable said these photos show a completely innocent interaction in any situation. and any suggestion otherwise is laughable. This doesn't deserve any further response. Rossini told the post, the photos don't represent the group of six people who are hanging out during the day, like most journalists in the NFL, reporters interact with sources away from stadiums

and other venues. Nora, how did you process the story when you first saw it? Sort of in two ways. One is that, you know, I, again, like, I'm not close with this person, but I have positive feelings towards her. And so part, I didn't want it to be true because of that.

I didn't want it to be true because what it means for a woman in her job. So I had the dueling experiences of feeling that way and then also looking at the photos and going, okay, yes, I can issue all of the caveats of we don't know and we don't know and we don't know. Also, there is something that makes you feel a little bit silly about doing that because it is an odd position to platonically wind up with someone in. I mean, something that Jody and I talked about is like, is it even possible to platonically interlock fingers? I suppose maybe, but it's hard to come up with this scenario. And even if that is the case, I think we can agree that this is journalistically not ideal, even if the photos were were just that and the context was missing. Also, you read the denials and they're not

equivocating. Like they're very, this isn't what you think it is. This isn't what it looks like. And here's my boss at the athletics saying so too. So I felt very like, gosh, I really don't know. Instinctually, it leads you pretty strongly in one direction. But if there is another shoe to drop here, like, would they really come out so forcefully and say, absolutely not? It's not what it looks like. So I was sort of in a pretzel. How about you, Joel? Yeah, you know, so I've had a lot of time to think about this because when we talked about it on Thursday, kind of like with Norse said, you don't want to seem totally credulous, right? I mean, we're adults.

You know, you see two people at a very secluded, very romantic type place interlocking fingers sitting side by side at a pool and then in a hot tub. I mean, come on, you know. But you're right. Like the denials were strong. But again, like, again, it's another thing like, of course they're going to be. Like if somebody that's accused of, you know, doing some sort of romantic getaway with somebody that's not their spouse,

I mean, you kind of got to carry that lie out all the way, you know? Like, you can't like, you can't even. I mean, unless, and again, this is where we get into the place where we just, we have no idea. And so it is inevitably a dead end, but I'm going to say it anyway. Like unless you know that it's not that you're waiting for the other shoe to drop, the shoe has dropped, the jig is up, and it's time to say, you know, we're really sorry. And that, like, at least that didn't happen.

Who are they going to say I'm sorry to under those circumstances, right? Like, who deserves an apology under those circumstances? I'm just trying to think back to like the T.J. Holmes situation, for instance. And I'm like, so they were clearly trying to keep this from their spouses at the time, right? Right. Right. But like, who are they supposed to apologize to under these circumstances? What are they sorry about?

I think it's that, you know, we regret the pain. This causes family, yada, yada, yada. Yeah. Yeah. It's funny. When I was rereading the story before we came on today, I was like, oh, here's a detail I missed. So the story from friends of us. of people close to Vrabel and Rossini in the story

is that Rassini was staying at this hotel. Vrable was staying at the Phoenix area because he'd been doing pre-draft stuff at Arizona State. Mike Vrable, the coach who just took the Patriots to the Super Bowl, drove four hours round trip to platonically hang out with an NFL reporter. Who's going to be at the same hotel as him

five days from or three days from them or whatever? They're about to show up at the owner's meeting. games together. So I'm like, does that, I mean, again, whatever, whatever the truth turns out to be here, what is your relationship with, with an NFL head coach if they are driving four hours to hang out with you in one day? Again, I would just, I would, that just to me is a very, very, this is something I I never heard of. Little Jordan Tyson breakdowns. A little Sam Levitt Intel, you know, get in on that early, you know. Datora, you mentioned that there was a denial from Rucini's boss in that story.

That is Stephen Ginsburg of The Athletic. He told the Post, these photos are misleading in lack of essential context. These were public interactions in front of many people, Diana, as a premier journalist covering the NFL, and were proud to have her at the Athletic. A little inside journalism on Stephen Ginsburg. He was a big editor at the Washington Post. He was seen as a candidate to be the editor of the Washington Post.

Washington Post back in 2021 when the paper hired Sally Busby. That was several Washington Post mistakes ago. 2022, Ginsburg left the post to become executive editor at the Athletic. Here's what I find ironic about that statement to the Post. Since he joined the Athletic, Ginsburg has said almost nothing publicly about that publication. Almost nothing. I was told this week that he hoped. hosts an internal podcast at the athletic in which he interviews writers about their craft.

That's kind of adorable, man. Wouldn't you like to be a part of that if you worked at the athletic? Wouldn't you want to be on that? I think that's really wonderful. And I just, the phrase, internal podcast is it takes simply so little to have an external podcast. A lot of people here at the ringer think the press box is a lot of people here at the ringer think the press box is an internal podcast.

Sometimes we just accidentally set it to public. But for Ginsburg to decide that this is going to be his one memorable public statement about the publication that he is the executive editor of. Oh, my goodness. Well, and it can't have been super thoughtfully done because it is sort of wrong, right? even in the first instance knowing as little as we know because at least one of those photos

if my understanding by page six is correct is that it was taken of the two of them on the roof deck of you know the this is a hotel where it's not all one building if you have a room there it's a little bungalow and they each have a roof deck

and so I guess that's public in the sense that you know you're not in a curtains closed totally non-visible environment, but that's not,

I wouldn't really describe that as being in public. That's a private space. That's a space that you need a particular hotel key card to enter. And somebody, you know,

with a lot of Zoom, was able to photograph them because they are outside. But it's a little, it's a little strange to me to say all of this took place in public. Because I don't,

I'm not really sure it did. Are you guys fascinated by the who took these pictures question that burbled up last week? I'm surprised we don't know the answer to that yet. Yeah. And there was the story that they were sort of shopped around. And I've not known in what direction that cuts. Is it more likely that if, you know, somebody sent a PI to see if they were up to something, that they would then go to various publications or wouldn't a rando who just happened to

be staying there and notice do the same thing. I don't know what to make of that part of it. Mike Frable's a very recognizable person, is he not? I seem to see him to hear, are you sure? I don't know about that one. Isn't he like a huge human being? He's physically imposing. And so if you see him in a space, you're probably going to, like, I used to have this

weird bit with Bill Barnwell about like what NFL player, if they were in the supermarket with you, would you definitely see? And it would be about the sort of nexus of who is physically imposing enough that you just wouldn't walk by them, but also recognizable enough so that if you saw their face, you'd be like, oh, that's so and so. And we would always say it was Cam Newton. Because, like, you know that's Cam Newton, but also he's a giant guy and he's probably wearing a crazy hat.

And I think without the crazy hat, Mike Frable passes the, you walk past this person, you sort of perceive them as being in the space with you test. And if you're a football fan, you probably know what his face looks like. NFL people, for as big as the sport is, are like, can be so anonymous. And this is something that Jody said to me too. She was like, I need you to know that most people would not clock who these people are. They would not know who they are. And they would not be able to ID them.

But I think if, you know, all it takes is someone who spends a lot of time watching, watching ESPN. A million times in your life, well, I mean, God, if you're a younger person and you're out in Houston, L.A., Vegas, New Orleans, wherever, and there's other NFL players

around, like, it's really hard to know what any individual NFL player looks like. You may be like, man, that guy's kind of built. I wonder if he plays something. And that I could see you getting there with Mike Vrable in that way, right? Like, oh, I mean, again, Vince Young.

If Vince Young walks in any room, I'm going to know who he is. Does the average person, they'll look at him and be like, Vince Young. They'll probably be like, well, he's pretty big. I wouldn't if he played something. But I just can't imagine anybody. That many people know Mike Vrable.

And, of course, Diana Rossini, I mean, there's just, I mean, again, for as prominent as she is in our business, there's just no way that many people in a far off resort, you know, in the middle of Arizona are going to be like, that's Diana Rossini, you know? That many people, 100%. it just, it only takes one. It all takes one.

I love the supermarket test. I'm imagining seeing Brock Purdy, you know, buying slices of monster cheese and Trader Joe's and being like, do I recognize that person? My point is like, you're just not even going to have that experience. You're just going to walk past the guy because he's not going to clock to you as a person who's anyone other than some guy buying monster cheese. Has that happened to you before? Who's the most famous person you've run into a grocery store? Specifically buying monster cheese. I saw Jesse Tyler Ferguson at a Barry's boot camp like two weeks ago.

My fiance told me that we walked past Jesse Eisenberg on the street in Brooklyn last week, but I didn't notice him. That's what I got for you right now. Phyllis is a lot more of that in New York than there is in L.A. weirdly enough. Because there's a lot of just strids like, oh, that was, I remember walking by Philip Seymour Hoffman one time. I'd be like, oh, that's Phil's someone. We'd just walk by each other in Brooklyn. See Rachel Dratch sometimes.

my goodness. I saw Drew Gooden and a Whole Foods in Orlando once. You remember Drew Gooden? Okay. Kansas? Yeah, Kansas.

There you go. So that page six story was last Tuesday. Last Friday, Ryan Glasspegel had a report in front office sports that the New York Times was investigating further

and that Racini was sidelined during that investigation. Glass Spiegel had a line saying sources told front office sports that the athletic is pressing for proof about Racini's claim that they were there with other people. Now, what has to happen in a newsroom from Tuesday to Friday that you would decide to make this giant U-turn, knowing that as soon as word of that investigation got out, this was going to become an even bigger story?

Well, think about what I just did and was saying where you read the statement and go, even in the first instance, some of this doesn't quite make sense. The claim that this was all happening, you know, in broad public daylight doesn't totally seem to line up with the photos. So as to who would raise that type of thing,

that's the piece that I don't quite understand. And I wonder if, like, I don't feel like I have a complete understanding of the relationship between the athletic, the athletic, and the New York Times. And, like, how do those two hands, talk to each other and is it possible that something can kind of be handled in athleticdom

and then in New York Times dumb somebody goes, hey, this doesn't quite work for us. I will say that like another thing that feels a bit sketchy about this whole thing is that the presence of other people was such a big part of the denial and there doesn't like there's no public the evidence of that, which you feel like there would be. Like, I've been on some girls' trips, and there tend to be a lot of photographs. So I wonder if it's that. If it's, hey, so if that's the case, can we just see some photos of the rest of the people? Oh, no, we don't have them.

Like, again, I'm totally speculating here. But that feels like the nexus of sort of a, hey, we actually have to take a second look at this. Yeah, my presumption that the way that this happened, and it probably, is wrong, but this is just my theory. The pictures come out, the story come out. He gets on the phone with Diana Rossini, Ginsburg, and she makes this adamant denial of anything untoward. It's kind of like in the Olivia Nutsi stories, like you want to believe your star reporter, like somebody that you have a relationship with, somebody that you have bestowed a lot of money and responsibility onto. And, you know, they're going to be like, hey,

like, this is bullshit. Like, people are just trying to embarrass me. This is, you know, this doesn't make any sense. I have the itinerary here. I can, do you want me to call my husband and tell you? And then you're like, no, no, no, no, that's not going to be necessary. That kind of stuff. And then you get off the phone.

And then other people are like, so what happened? Like, did she, when you talked there, did she give you, who were her friends that were there? And he probably was like, oh, shit. That's a, that's a good point, you know? Maybe I need some more evidence. And so I could, I could imagine just wanting to. to this to go away and to believe somebody that you have an established relationship with. And then other people come in and being like, bro, I don't know.

I think she might have finessed you on this, you know? I think whenever there's a journalism scandal, there's, or a maybe scandal in this case, there's always two stories. There's a story you tell the world and there's a story you tell your boss. And often the story you tell your boss is just as important as the other one. Because that's what it comes down to. And obviously, and if, again, if Glass Speakers report is correct, and that's what they're confirming here.

I'm kind of interested in like what, again, this is, this, you hit a brick wall in this, eventually, right? Like, what are you going to show me that's going to prove that this is one way or the other? That this is what this was one way or that? What photograph are you going to come up with that is going to end this conversation once and for all? In every story that Stephen Glass, Jason Blair, just stories of fabulous stories of people that, are caught up in scandal,

I feel like one of the most common things to emerge from that is that the managers want to believe. Like they start out really looking for ways to believe their reporter. It's a natural impulse, right? That is what you want. I think we all kind of want to believe. I don't want, I want there to be an uncompromised and high-functioning Diana Rossini

in the NFL reporting landscape. I also don't like, even if people can do things that are professionally disqualifying and we live in a society where, you know, we need as many consequences as we still have in that society. But like you can also, the whole thing seems incredibly unpleasant. Like it's very hard to root for the destruction and the meanness. And like, yes, there is an element of scandal that people can get a little gleeful about. But in general, it's like who would, very few people are going to feel like there's an incentive for them for this to be true or to want it to be true. Like, that's a hard position to take. I don't want to sound like the sports radio host that Nora mentioned earlier, but I also got some texts over the weekend. After Joel and I's segment on Friday, one thing Joel and I did not do a great job of was, was adding context to this discussion about what it's like to be a woman in sports media in 2026.

And if I may, again, at the risk of sounding like said sports radio host, just read from a text that I got from a national reporter who told me, we're always thinking about what we're wearing, where we're meeting people, if we are willing to get a cocktail with a source, what time we call slash text.

And this reporter was talking to be about going out of your way, to make sure there's not even an appearance of impropriety. Forget about impropriety, even the appearance, so that somebody could point a finger. And she continued like this. She said a lot of it is dressing professionally slash conservatively. Golf, I think it's pretty easy, daytime activity.

Dinner's usually fine too, but I do lean toward going to a place near meeting slash the event we're at. So if you run into anyone, it makes sense. It wouldn't look like anything to hide. Sitting at the bar around people, not off in a corner. If you're at a table, not anything that looks too cozy. or romantic, and I don't get drinks with coaches who have ever been flirty or could misread the situation. Noro, have you experienced those kind of ideas? Yeah. I guess it's, yeah, all of that,

all of that resonates, right? Like, all of those, I think, are ways that women who work in these spaces think about as means of protecting themselves. that description already does mean that that person cannot do their job in the way that Ian Rappaport can do his job. Like, it is, you're all, there's an acceptance of that of a just demonstrably different mode of existing in any sort of NFL media world, but particularly insiderdom, which like, first of all, is something that I have never, you know, I, I feel like there's. some of this that I can speak to and then some of this where I have kind of always known that

that was not for me. And when information, when you've decided that that is the thing that you're going to pursue to add value to yourself as a person in this career, like, I do think that that takes on a certain set of complications in terms of how you go about that. Because like, yeah, all that totally makes sense to me. And that those are the, I'm in a bunch of group texts with women who cover the NFL and, you know, we'll send each other, hey, like, say it's someone who works on the West Coast. Hey, I know it's later in Boston or wherever. Do you think it's still okay for me to send this text? I really need this piece of information. Like, what do you guys think of this phrasing? Does this sound, is there any way this could be

misconstrued? Like, people, there's a lot of effort that goes into not putting yourself in a bad situation or a situation that could seem bad. The problem with that is that it makes it so much harder. Like it makes it I don't, it's sort of an open question to me of if you can really go at this incredibly chummy, incredibly relationship based type of work within the NFL media landscape while always being that hyper, hyper careful, which a lot of women who do this are, and I think that's for good reasons. And I think, like, I think ultimately that's the way to be.

But part of what's complicated about this is, like, I don't, she's, Diana is probably the most prominent and most successful female NFL news broker. ever, I think. Like I can't really come up with somebody else who I think has really made themselves part of a conversation with the Rappaports and Schefters and Pelliseros and Fowlers and Breers. Like it is kind of just her. And there is a shamelessness to the way that the guys do it

that I think is culturally accepted that when you introduce a woman, into that space. It's really, really complicated. And I'm not sure there is a right answer because I, like, I'm not sure that we've ever seen someone get there by being that careful. And that is when you get into the messiness of insiderdom in general that I think we all feel. And it, but it definitely presents, I think, a very specific complication for any woman. What was the Jay Glazer text? Or the Jay Glazer tweet you were talking about Nora on your podcast the other day. Oh, well, it was also from owners meetings.

He tweeted out a photo. I think you can see a bunch of people at the table. I think you can see Mike Tomlin, some assistant coaches. And it's Jay Glazer just being like, several years ago I started a annual tradition where I get together with the coaches and we day drink. And we call it day drinking. Yeah. And here's a photo of us doing that. And imagine a woman on the beat tweeting that out.

Right, you can't. Jay drinking with the guys. But I also think about this, Nora, I mean, don't a lot of these meetings, whether it's with agents, front office people, I mean, just real shit. Doesn't a lot of this happen in strip clubs too? Like, do, do, do, would you have gone to one of those, you know, they're like, hey, look, we're going to, you know, legs and eggs at 1030. than I would you go to that?

I've had that question posed to me by other media members and the answer is no. It would be no if coaches or NFL people posed it to me but that's never happened to me, I will say. Yeah. I mean, it just seems

I mean, it is unfair. It is very unfair. But a question I have to the person that both sent you that text, Brian, and to Nora in a way, when I hear them saying making all these preparations, right, like taking these precautions. This is about the sources, right?

And like making sure you're not giving off the wrong impression or like making them think that you're available in some sort of way. Because there's no way, I mean, just given where we are in the world, right? There's no way that female reporters, insiders or whatever, are going to be able to manage their reputation with fans or people that follow the NFL, right? Because they're already, I mean, I hate to say it. I mean, their inclination is to lean towards. Well, we know why those women are there. I mean, I see these comments on social media and everything else. And I don't mean to malign everybody that follows for every male football fan that follows football.

But it is a well-worn trope on social media that men think that these attractive women are put in this place and that they, you know, it's a joke. And it's a bad joke. But it's just part of, like, the language that they're. they use to malign women that dare enter this space, right? So, like, do you really think that, like, by doing all that, that that can influence the way other people think about you? Or is that more about just the reputation within the industry and within the coaches and the front office types?

I think it's, yeah, it's about the sources. Because I agree with you. I don't think that, you know, certainly every fan does not do this. Every male fan does not do this. But I think in general, and this applies across genders, if you are making choices. as someone in sports media to avoid negative Twitter commentary. It's not a useful starting point. I think it's, you know, part of it is you're trying so hard to avoid getting a weird text from someone

or someone gets too drunk at a combine thing and makes a pass. because one, it's inappropriate and offensive and bad. Also, then you burn a source. You just kind of got to not, like, particularly if you are choosing to just be like, okay, I just don't want to deal with it, then you can't text that person anymore. And that's tough. Like, you don't want to be crossing people off one by one that way. And I think that's the thing that that person who's saying, you know,

I don't sit at the corner of the bar. It has to be within a certain distance of. where the event is so that there's a clear explanation. Like, I think that's what that person, I would guess, is most trying to avoid. It's a good point. And it's, we're talking about two different things, right? We're talking about people in the industry, right, who are crossing lines and doing, saying inappropriate things and looking at women that cover the game in an inappropriate way.

And then the secondary thing of people that are just other reporters, people like the press box podcast watching the industry and making. They're two different things, but they're both interlocked. And I think in those comments, they are. Nora, you talked about insiderdom. Can we talk about what is the point of insiderdom in 2026? Now we're, see, we're on the boat. We're heading to think Peace Island.

I just think this is a fascinating conversation because the world has changed a lot since I think the first heyday of this, which is probably the early 2010s. Schefter's breaking scoops on Twitter and Woge is breaking scoops on Twitter. How do we think insiderdom fits in with the world we live in today? Well, I think you're right to mention Twitter kind of from the jump of this, because there was an era of social media, but particularly Twitter, that really prioritized the, you know, 280 characters or less transactional scooplet.

right? That was that was something that could fuel conversation and fuel sports media really effectively because of the prominence, you know, among fans, but especially among other media people, of that platform. I think right now, now that Twitter is what it is, or, you know, X, excuse me, it's much harder to answer the question because I'm not like the utility of someone telling me something that I'm going to get from a team and a press release. It's not even really hours later. It's probably minutes later in a lot of cases. I don't I don't really know how to make an argument for that being something that's super additive for me.

or for what I would see is the NFL landscape. The version of insiderdom that we were talking about with Diana, though, where it's some of it is the now they tell us, but some of it is also the, I want to know about Brick Johnson in the front office, you know, making everybody annoyed. Like that version of it, I do know how to make the argument for that. I'm glad I know those stories.

I also, like, I believe that those stories were effectively and thoroughly reported. I guess like I haven't, you know, done the forensics of that. But those all seem to be true. And I think the NFL media consuming public is, is better equipped to understand the league and those teams for knowing those things. It's funny because I think those stories have been around. We could probably find examples in newspapers, right? News happens. Then your boss says, hey, go find out why this thing happened.

Or give me the backstory here. But I think in a way, the prominence of Schefter at all created. the thirst for those stories because those guys are doing such short tweets and then they move on to the next thing. It's just it's not actually about how football teams work. It's just about transactions.

It's so divorced, as you say, from the game. So then there's this giant hole of like, wait, why did Aaron Glenn get retained? What happened? Right, nobody has any idea. And they've sort of created that. Yeah. And they've sort of created that. Even some of you see it happening with

with Schefter, who of course is still reporting. a lot of individual nuggets of information, but it seems more and more like what his job is is to play the character of NFL of Adam Schefter on studio shows. Like it's to trot him out and have him like juggling 17 phones and run into the corner to take a phone call and come back and tell you something.

And it's more like it seems to me to be more about giving viewers the experience of watching someone furiously type into their, their phone, then it is about actually what's going to happen because people are going to find out very shortly anyway. It's really funny. When Schfter first became a thing, I remember thinking, oh, power on television now is that you're on TV, but you're typing on your Blackberry.

This is when BlackBerry is where I think. Yeah. Like that's, I'm on television, but actually I'm busy. Yeah. That was the new power. Now we're just, now, as you say, that's part of the, that's part of the act. Got another scoop coming. Hold on. So y'all are saying chef tweets and woj bombs don't ring off like they used to?

I think if technology created those guys in a certain way or empowered those guys in a certain way, it has also taken away some of their power. Because let's take the Aaron Glenn example. As soon as Aaron Glenn is retained, okay, he's coming back, your favorite Jet's podcast is going live. Immediately. We're live talking about the decision, the crazy decision to bring Eric Glenn. back for one more season and you're like, oh, so not only is it, they're not like a lag between, hey, the newspaper has to come out a day later to match the scoop. The scoops matched instantly

and the people you care about that are actually giving you analysis of the situation that are talking about it, they're up. Their content is out there. So what's the point, really, right? If you're just giving me something that was going to happen anyway, that's always been the question. now there's not even time between that bit of information and me turning to the people I want to hear on it, whether it's a ringer podcast, whether it's a local team podcast, whatever it is. I think that's undermine them in a lot of ways.

I think that that's definitely true. I'm trying to think about the Max Crosby story because that's the thing that I can think of in relatively recent NFL scoops where... Some of those people, I think, added to it in a way that felt meaningful, like to be able to know fairly quickly that it was about a physical, which, yes, okay, was that terribly hard to extrapolate, given his injury history and what had been going on with him?

No, but with a little bit more certainty to kind of understand the timeline of, okay, he's there, and then they decide to, Baltimore decides to fail him. I think there were, I think there was texture to that story, which is, you know, it's one of the bigger stories of this off season that those guys were able to provide and those people going on those podcasts have a little bit more to work with as a result of that. Maybe. It's hard to say it with my full chest.

Joel, do you think it's weird that the New York Times got into the insider business, not just with Rossini, but with Shams as well? I feel like it's, that's the thing that I've been. trying to think about because if you know anybody at the athletic, you know they're not allowed to refer to themselves as working for the New York Times. The New York Times has been fairly adamant about like, no, don't say you're with the New York Times. You're with the athletic. And so I think that the New York Times is in the insider business just because this is the way the sports insider business, because this is just the way they chose to be in sports, right? They

wanted to farm all that out to some other people. And they had a fairly robust news organization that was there, but I don't, do you really think of this as like reflecting on the Times? Because I actually don't. I still think of this as an athlete. I've been really actually interested in how many people have referred to this as a time story as opposed to an athletic story because I feel like if you know anybody that works at the athletic, the division is fairly clear. Yes. Yes, it is. Look, page six gets so much much more of a pop out of it if it's a New York Times reporter. Well, and they really made sure to splash that pretty prominently. Right, right, right.

They can't wait to make fun. I actually meant to ask you guys this, though, did you all ever felt pressure to become insiders at any point in your careers? Because it is obviously what was value. It's still value, like very highly in every kind of journalism you cover from politics, culture, and certainly sports. Like being an insider, like Pete Thammle, like is a big dude, a big deal. college football, right? And he, like, elevated past a lot of people that were above him on the hierarchy

because he can do, he can break news like that. So like, did you all ever feel like, man, I better do that to keep my job, Nora? Not to that extent. I've definitely felt pressure at various junctures to work that muscle a little bit more. And even if it's not, even if it's not one of the main tools I'm trying to advertise in my toolkit to sharpen it a little bit. I don't like to text, man. That was the biggest turn off. I don't. This I just can't stand. I've mostly known that that was not for me. What about you, Joel? Well, you know, so when I started at BuzzFeed in the fall of 2013,

they had a sports vertical. And I was going to be a senior sports writer. So my thought was I was going to do longer pieces and all this other stuff. But also, you know, contribute to I learn how to make gifts, for instance, you know, doing all that kind of shit because it just seemed like an important thing to do at BuzzFeed. And within six months, they had folded our vertical. So I ended up getting put under our investigative editor. I wasn't an investigative reporter, but I was part of the start of what would become our national desk.

Okay. But it still was very worrisome. I was like, man, they don't really seem to care about sports over here. And not very long after that. I think I can say this. Ben Smith, who was the editor of BuzzFeed News, came up to me and he was like, do you know Woz? Do you know this guy, Adrian Woz and Arske?

I was like, yeah, I don't know him personally, but I know who he is. And he was fixated for the next month on hiring Woj, like trying to get me to get in to get in contact with Woz to bring him in. He said, he doesn't even have to write. he wouldn't even have to write. He could just do his tweets and we could try to, they were trying to figure out a way

to do something to where he was utilizing that platform, breaking news on Twitter, and have it like impact traffic over BuzzFeed News. I think the thing is, is that Woz never, he never followed up.

Like, they talked, but he never came in for a meeting or whatever. But I remember thinking, I was like, this is the only time that Ben Smith has been really interested in any sports story. Any aspect to sports coverage.

Like, he only cares about breaking a new, Oh, breaking news. And I was like, I wonder if I need to get on that shit at some point. Because it seems to be the only thing he cares about. And if you know Ben Smith, Scoops is, you know, that might be his middle name. That's wild. Woe's going to BuzzFeed. He wanted Woe's so bad.

He wanted Woe's so bad. I was like, I don't know him, man. You know what I mean? I just could not help him. I felt like a failure because I couldn't get, I couldn't help him get woes. But he wanted Woe's so bad. Just to do tweets. Just to do.

Yeah. Well, because that's what it is, right? He wants, okay, yes, he wants the scoops, but what does he actually want the scoops for? It's for a particular type of Twitter engagement. And that is a currency that I think has been, that was so valuable and has since been devalued. Well, what's interesting, right, is that none of the,

none of the big, you know, sports, I guess you could say maybe the new basketball TV partners have deemphasized insiderdom to a degree. they didn't try to go out and recreate, you know, a shams and get their own shams in the same way that some of the others did. But like, Glazer still a Fox. ESPN still has a person at every sport. Like this, this court has not been cut. And I almost think now it's like whenever I watch TV and you mention Pete Thammel, so much of what it's on TV, TV sports like chat shows, especially pregame shows, just like the level of discourse about the sport is terrible.

It's like these people don't watch this sport or they just have spent so little time compared to your average football podcaster. But when you put the insider character on TV, I look up from the couch because I'm like, oh, that person knows something. Now, maybe they've already broken it on Twitter two minutes ago and I just missed it because I was, you know, doing something else. But I think the role they serve now is not so much to actually drive traffic, but to give you a, a reason to watch a television show that you might have watched just completely tune out of. Give it some currency. At this point, it's not even, it's just competitive

reporting at this point, right? Like, I mean, as opposed to, I mean, it's sort of insider reporting, but I think it's particularly sports is like lost people, resources, reach, that it's just having people that are willing to do a series of phone calls

all day long and text all day long, having somebody that is just there, to do that and you can break source because not very many people are getting the opportunity to do that even in beat coverage because they've got to contribute to podcast, take video, do update the website, you know, so many different times. There's not a lot of room for people to do the sort of reporting that Pete Thammo or Adam Schaefter or Shams are doing, right? And so it's just even if it doesn't, even if it's not quite insider reporting anymore, I would just say it's like, we beat everybody to this. like it's just we're reporting a thing

it's not it I didn't even have to work that hard to get it but it's just like it's just like it's just you know it's the scroll well it's a character right it's it's it's this trope that we have a certain type of comfort with because we're just used to them being around

and we kind of know we know the in jokes about what it is to be an insider like I mentioned this to you guys the other day but like that whole I was think of that story when the Bears were meeting with Caleb Williams before the draft. And I think it was, sorry if I get the particular two insiders.

It might have been Breer and Pellcero, who both reported slightly different versions. I think it was different restaurants of a story about Caleb Williams, a draft prospect, who was always, always, always going to have had a meeting with the bears based on their needs and where they were drafting. Getting a steak with the team brass. But it was that one of them said a different restaurant. One of them said it was a steakhouse and the other one said it was Italian or something like that. And people really, like, it was very funny.

People got a lot of jokes off about the idea of, you know, the two warring scoops that simply don't matter. Like, they don't tell you anything. But we do have this fluency with the idea of, you know, per Adam Schaefter, like, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And so therefore there's a shared language, I think, and people sort of have, people have come to have a certain type of fun with that. And particularly in football, which I think, like, the comparison point to,

to basketball and the way that the pregame shows different. football has a harder time being personality-based than some other sports do. And so it's almost like the personality of the insider rather than the personality of an individual person can do some of that work. It's like this type of thing that you know what it is and you know what to expect when you turn on the TV

and there's comfort for an audience in that. That's such a good point. So like Kirk Cousins isn't going to get, us their personality-wise. But Adam Schaefter and Jay Glazer typing away furiously on their phones might. And I don't think that's wrong. Glazer is maybe different

because like he does have a weird energy. But if you've heard him on a podcast, he's intense. Yeah, he's intense. Intense is the right word. But I totally go to them. But like Schaeftor is a personality. Maybe like he, Adam Schaefter, is not going to do that.

But the guy who's furiously typing on the Blackberry, like there's, there's something. compelling about that or we've sort of all just culturally agreed that there's something compelling about that and so that can that's that's good enough I think they're almost certainly

going to be more prominent than whatever nickel corner they're reporting on too right like more people on TV are probably going to be more familiar with Adam Schaefter and whoever is in that buried in their phone than you know the fourth you know the fourth pass rusher for whoever

the Green Bay Packers right definitely and when they're reporting on that nickel corner, by the way, they don't know anything about that nickel corner. Because this is what I love about insider term now. It's like, young player, you know, young player gets a new deal. And you look and it's like two years, zero million dollars. Somebody who could be cut at the end of camp. It's like, if this guy walked up to your door, Mr. Insider, would you recognize that person?

Have you watched this person play one snap ever? And like, no, you have not. You have. You have no idea who this player is. And you have borrowed an adjective. to get you through the Twink. This is where I get really fed up with the current state of affairs is the amount of things that just either mean nothing or are literally wrong. Like such and such player bet on himself in free agency.

And bet on himself is just to stand in for, yeah, there actually wasn't a whole lot available for this guy because he had a bad season last year and his ankles busted and everybody knows it. And so therefore, this incentive-laden deal that the team can get out of whenever they want, but maybe if he turns into a revelation, yeah, they'll owe him a little bit of extra money in three years. That's what that means. But, like, this is, that's what makes me want to tear my hair out about the way that insider reporting works is when you read that and you know it means that. But the words that you're reading are so-and-so-bed on himself. Like, that's where I think we need to all take a log look in the mirror. Yeah, that's agent language, too, right?

Well, literally. Yeah, right. Yeah. Some cases literally, when the tweets all read the same. That's fair. Right. Like, I know Drew Rosenhaus texted you that. When I think about who empowered the insider, I think of one, Jack Dorsey by creating

Twitter. Thank you. Thank you, Jack. And number two, I think it's all of podcast them. Because we all have, we all did this. And Joel and I do plenty of media woge bombs on this podcast. We are not, our hands are not clean here. But when you have a podcast and it has to have stuff on it, two, three times a week, man, those insider scoops are real handy.

Oh my gosh. We have something to talk about. I mean, also people like me who are sitting here saying to you, I hate to text. So I want a different job. But I've worked hard to make that possible for myself. But a lot of the raw material of that requires the people who are going to do this. That is the coal shoveled into the engine. Adam Schefter reports, and now we will have opinion about what Adam Schaefter reported.

We'll say this. A good move. Arvel Reese going number two. Okay, here we go. It's the time for the podcast to begin. Like, that has helped our lives immensely. We have given into that, and that has empowered the inside. There's no question in my mind that that's part of what happened.

Totally. I do think there are a lot of people, a lot of fans out there, and a lot of media members, but let's start with the fans who love the scooping. of the insider such as it is, but feel very queasy about where those scoops came from, especially when they read those oddly worded tweets. Don't you think, when you think of the Rossini thing, and again, at this moment, we don't know the truth of the matter, right?

So let's just put that over there. But don't you think a lot of those fans have been looking for a smoking gun? They have just been looking for something to happen to say, aha, see, I knew it. I knew that there was something. I didn't understand about where all these stories were coming from. And that that has just been in the background all along, whether it's football, basketball, whatever.

Yes. Now, I think those same fans are mostly going to turn around and apply that and use the evidence when it suits them and when it discounts a story that's bad for their team or promotes a story that's good for their team. I knew it. Yeah. I, I think that's absolutely true. I think one of the things that is unfortunate about this story

is I wish that smoking gun were being applied to a slightly different type of insider reporting, right? Like, I do actually think that the type of insider that Diana Rossini has been is something that adds more value to the general ecosystem than some of the other types out there. Now, that doesn't mean that, you know, it's entirely possible she did something completely disqualifying here. And those can be separate things. But yes, I do think that one way or another, the finding the smoking gun is sort of satisfying to people. There was a Kevin Draper story years ago about Joe Dumas when he was running the Pistons. and he had some evidence in that story.

I remember that was one of those moments. I figured out how this all works. I understand how this thing works now. And I just feel people have been trying to figure that out for a long time. Well, and I'm embarrassed to admit that I've read some Reddit threads about this particular topic in the last couple of days. And it's just gross and it bums you out. It bums you out the way that people talk about other people. One that I guess brings me a sort of a purport.

reverse laugh is the amount of Jets fans who seem to genuinely believe that reporting about the Jets that paints the Jets in a bad light as if they needed any help doing that. Oh my God. Is evidence that like her support for the Patriots, this man became the head coach of the Patriots a year ago, would lead her to write specifically negative stories about. the Jets and focus on reporting negative stories about the Jets as a way of advancing his career and helping his career. I don't, I mean, that does, I mean, why are, I mean, that, that is, that is hilarious

because like, you've been a Jets fan. Your whole, you, for a long time. They don't need any help. The Jets have been good. I mean, I'm, what, 47 years old. The Jets have been good, what, maybe five years in my life, like the Parcell's years, the couple of years. couple of the

couple of the Rex Ryan years. Yeah, I mean, they don't need but I don't have seen he's not the reason or you know. She didn't name him brick. Rick Johnson. Oh my God. A couple more notes before we get out of here.

Joel, I think you're absolutely right that the Athletic and the New York Times proper exist in different spheres. One thing that's interesting about this story is we're seeing that those fears do overlap in certain ways, right? Like if something happens at the athletic or allegedly happens, it is still a New York Times company. And there's still going to be a different kind of investigation that, you know, that might happen there that is happening there, then might happen at a sports website, let's say.

I just think that is an interesting part of this. I do also think, not to center Peter King anymore in this conversation, but them getting into that business is fascinating. You know, them saying not just at the price point, but just saying, like, we're going to build a. build this website around an insider in the various sports, just like ESPN has. They could have designed the athletic in any way, but we're going to do it in that way. You know, we're going to have this and then we're going to have a tier of reporters who come in and write the stories Norris talking about with what really happened stories, and we're going to have beat coverage.

But at the top of the heap, payroll-wise and otherwise is going to be an insight. Every website or every outlet needs a star or wants to have. have a star, right? Like, they want somebody that makes you come back. And it makes sense that they would bet on Diana because, as Norr said, she's like, I don't even know her, but I know people that know her and say she's a good hang. She's a fun person. You know, her personality sort of jumps off the screen. So it makes sense that if you were trying to do that, that you'd want to kind of how like Ben Smith wanted to bring in woege. You know, it's like, we got woes now, you know? And it was, I mean, think about all the times in our life that an outlet has brought,

when the Fort War Star Telegram brought over Randy Galloway, you remember what a big deal that was in the DFW area, right? I think, yeah. So you want to have a star, but yeah, like, I mean, that's a bet you're making, right? That that person is going to not only live up to it, but that they're not going to step in it in a way that's going to embarrass you, right? Well, I always flinch when I hear the word star, because like when I think of star in a movie, you are buying a ticket to the movie because the person's in it.

Like how many reporters are you paying to subscribe to the newspaper for? You know, they can measure this now, right? It's conversions. Like, I believe Maggie Haberman that people subscribe to the New York Times because of Maggie Harriman. I believe that is a thing that happens. I don't know how many people bought subscriptions to the Athletic or the Times for Diana Rossini or for Shams.

I generally do not know that. And I think that'd be kind of an interesting thing to know. Don't, why are you doing that? don't do it because then nobody's ever going to get that money. Oh, the conversions thing? I don't want it for me. No, but I'm just, I don't want to be measured in those words,

but I am interested in how other people are measured. I don't know that there's that many people who do that consciously, but I do think that those people are such core contributors to the types of stories that we're talking about. Those we're going to flesh it out and give you three and a half, juicy enough anecdotes. And I think people subscribe to the athletic for those. And I don't know that those exist in the same way

without those people. Those are the rainmakers. But you need two or three bylines on each one of them, including a really plugged in insider person who can get things that maybe the other report is not going to be able to get. To make that into the full Brick Johnson experience. Nora, thank you so much for doing this.

We appreciate you. in podcast and text form. Thanks so much for me on the press box. I would gladly text either of you. Oh, my gosh. Thank you so much. Thanks for tightening us up, too. You made us better today.

Absolutely. He's Joel Anderson. I'm Brian Curtis. Thanks a magic by Isaiah Blakely and Bruce Baldwin. Coming up on the press box, more Joel Anderson Thursday. We've got a Ruben Bain story to talk about, Joel. I got some strong opinions on.

What are you doing Thursday? We got something where he rope you back into football reporting. I just hang out in here. So anytime you want to turn the lights on. That was kind of an interesting insider bomb or not insider bomb, wasn't it? I was like, oh, well, we already knew all the Ruben Bain stuff. You guys go back to doing your mock drafts. We got this handle.

That's Thursday. See you then, Joel. I see that one.