Vrabel and Russini

[titanruss]

13 hours ago, Jamalisms said:

 

This is a weird level of projection. Holy cow.

 

You clearly have never had a FWB / situationship in your life. Everything you are writing in this thread is projection of your very narrow view of reality. 

[Jamalisms]

"Nuh-uh, you're projecting!"

 

Ok, sounds good.

[Jamalisms]

Regarding that original (obviously abnormal) statement by The Athletic: 

 

Natalie Korach of Status reports, via Sam Neumann of Awful Announcing, that staff members within The Athletic and its parent company, the New York Times, have concerns about the publication’s P.R. strategy.

 

One unnamed source called the companies’ handling of the matter, per Korach, “unnecessarily messy.” Another unnamed source, per Korach, objected to the initial statement from The Athletic executive editor Steven Ginsberg, which was loud and clear and devoid of any mention that an investigation had already begun. The source called the approach “reckless,” “premature,” and “intentionally sneaky.”

 

Even if the initial statement resulted from an aggressive and unequivocal denial by the reporter, it made no sense to push a narrative that, based on the photos, may not have been fully accurate. That said, The Athletic was in a tough spot. Saying nothing would have said plenty. Telling the full and complete truth would have given credence to the notion that the reporter’s aggressive and unequivocal denial may not have been fully accurate.

 

... The best response may have been some version of the truth. Something like this: “We have seen the photos. We have received the reporter’s explanation. Given the high editorial standards that apply to this publication, we are reviewing the situation.”

 

It’s a wrinkle that makes it even less likely, in our view, that Russini will return to The Athletic before the expiration of her contract. It reportedly expires in August 2026. It may lapse even before that.

 

... However it plays out, it’s been a little clunky so far for The Athletic. That makes it even more important for The Athletic to stick the landing in a way that will create the right impression externally and, more importantly, internally.

 

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/report-staffers-have-concerns-about-the-athletics-response-to-the-dianna-russini-situation

 

[titanruss]

17 minutes ago, Jamalisms said:

Regarding that original (obviously abnormal) statement by The Athletic: 

 

Natalie Korach of Status reports, via Sam Neumann of Awful Announcing, that staff members within The Athletic and its parent company, the New York Times, have concerns about the publication’s P.R. strategy.

 

One unnamed source called the companies’ handling of the matter, per Korach, “unnecessarily messy.” Another unnamed source, per Korach, objected to the initial statement from The Athletic executive editor Steven Ginsberg, which was loud and clear and devoid of any mention that an investigation had already begun. The source called the approach “reckless,” “premature,” and “intentionally sneaky.”

 

Even if the initial statement resulted from an aggressive and unequivocal denial by the reporter, it made no sense to push a narrative that, based on the photos, may not have been fully accurate. That said, The Athletic was in a tough spot. Saying nothing would have said plenty. Telling the full and complete truth would have given credence to the notion that the reporter’s aggressive and unequivocal denial may not have been fully accurate.

 

... The best response may have been some version of the truth. Something like this: “We have seen the photos. We have received the reporter’s explanation. Given the high editorial standards that apply to this publication, we are reviewing the situation.”

 

It’s a wrinkle that makes it even less likely, in our view, that Russini will return to The Athletic before the expiration of her contract. It reportedly expires in August 2026. It may lapse even before that.

 

... However it plays out, it’s been a little clunky so far for The Athletic. That makes it even more important for The Athletic to stick the landing in a way that will create the right impression externally and, more importantly, internally.

 

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/report-staffers-have-concerns-about-the-athletics-response-to-the-dianna-russini-situation

 

 

Ahh.. yes, attack the messenger approach. 

[Jamalisms]

No idea what that means in this circumstance but based on track record you're probably wrong. Tell me more about how that statement was perfectly normal and exactly what every company does.

[begooode]

30 minutes ago, Jamalisms said:

Regarding that original (obviously abnormal) statement by The Athletic: 

 

Natalie Korach of Status reports, via Sam Neumann of Awful Announcing, that staff members within The Athletic and its parent company, the New York Times, have concerns about the publication’s P.R. strategy.

 

One unnamed source called the companies’ handling of the matter, per Korach, “unnecessarily messy.” Another unnamed source, per Korach, objected to the initial statement from The Athletic executive editor Steven Ginsberg, which was loud and clear and devoid of any mention that an investigation had already begun. The source called the approach “reckless,” “premature,” and “intentionally sneaky.”

 

Even if the initial statement resulted from an aggressive and unequivocal denial by the reporter, it made no sense to push a narrative that, based on the photos, may not have been fully accurate. That said, The Athletic was in a tough spot. Saying nothing would have said plenty. Telling the full and complete truth would have given credence to the notion that the reporter’s aggressive and unequivocal denial may not have been fully accurate.

 

... The best response may have been some version of the truth. Something like this: “We have seen the photos. We have received the reporter’s explanation. Given the high editorial standards that apply to this publication, we are reviewing the situation.”

 

It’s a wrinkle that makes it even less likely, in our view, that Russini will return to The Athletic before the expiration of her contract. It reportedly expires in August 2026. It may lapse even before that.

 

... However it plays out, it’s been a little clunky so far for The Athletic. That makes it even more important for The Athletic to stick the landing in a way that will create the right impression externally and, more importantly, internally.

 

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/report-staffers-have-concerns-about-the-athletics-response-to-the-dianna-russini-situation

 

Calling a reactionary PR statement on a very sensitive topic “intentionally sneaky” comes with a lot of negative baggage and calls out the people who decided to defend Russini so strongly.

Edited Monday at 04:50 PM by begooode

[titanruss]

26 minutes ago, Jamalisms said:

"Nuh-uh, you're projecting!"

 

Ok, sounds good.

 

You obviously are.... 

 

You're projecting your lack of sexual and relationship experience (outside of the 1 you've had). You are projecting a lack of understanding of real world situations and observation skills.... among the laundry list of things indicating your personality type and likely medical diagnosis. 

 

This entire thread is basically people laughing at Vrabel and your manic posting. 

[titanruss]

23 minutes ago, Jamalisms said:

No idea what that means in this circumstance but based on track record you're probably wrong. Tell me more about how that statement was perfectly normal and exactly what every company does.

 

lol... you cant see it can you?

[CreepingDeath]

8 minutes ago, titanruss said:

 

lol... you cant see it can you?

I mean, he is wearing an eye patch.  

[OILERMAN]

50 minutes ago, begooode said:

Calling a reactionary PR statement on a very sensitive topic “intentionally sneaky” comes with a lot of negative baggage and calls out the people who decided to defend Russini so strongly.

 

It was stupid for them to come out in support right off the bat. They had to backtrack on that almost right away

[Jamalisms]

44 minutes ago, begooode said:

Calling a reactionary PR statement on a very sensitive topic “intentionally sneaky” comes with a lot of negative baggage and calls out the people who decided to defend Russini so strongly.

 

Considering they're calling out the person who made that statement in defense of Russini ... uh, yeah?

 

It was an ill-advised and strongly worded statement and will turn into a black eye for The Athletic if Vrabel and Russini were lying. People argued against that because something something Jamal's projecting.

 

And yet here we are.

[OILERMAN]

2 minutes ago, Jamalisms said:

And yet here we are.

 

Yea, with Russini fired

[Jamalisms]

1 minute ago, OILERMAN said:

 

Yea, with Russini fired

 

Though directly punishing her might help save face it's still more likely she stays sidelined while the investigation unfolds and then they just don't renew the contract.

[OILERMAN]

Just now, Jamalisms said:

 

Though directly punishing her might help save face it's still more likely she stays sidelined while the investigation unfolds and then they just don't renew the contract.

 

It's the same thing as firing her. 

 

To say she's not fired is like Trumpers claiming Bondi and Noaimi weren't fired, they were moved to other positions

[Jamalisms]

If we get far enough along and that ends up being what happened, it will have been a soft firing. Those are still pretty distinct from outright firings for obvious reasons but if those reasons don't matter to you then ... sure.

 

And we're not there yet anyway.