Vrabel and Russini

[oldschool]

10 minutes ago, Mythos27 said:

Vrabel absolutely has to speak to his players and I'm sure he will. The players will forgive and move on but they won't forget and if he gets on a high-horse about something personal within the next calendar year you can bet there will be some eye-rolling at the very least from the players. At the same time, and I'm sure many of you can attest to this, men have gotten pretty good at giving other men a complete pass for infidelity and crossing sexual boundaries with women in the work place. Doubly so, if the man is useful. This is nothing some winning won't alleviate. 

 

Other than cheating on his wife, Vrabel did nothing wrong by manipulating a reporter to get his message out. all teams do this to a certain degree. Its how sports and political journalism operate. What Vrabel did was morally wrong, What Russini did was morally and ethically wrong because she crossed the line on how she covered him across numerous stops which compromised her impartiality.

 

That being said, This story has somewhat cast the light on how the NFL insiders operate. They post stories agents tell them too to garner favor and get scoops. Or you have guys like Schrager who went to McVay's wedding and used that as a backdrop for a bio on McVay. Schrager and his wife were wedding guests and clearly friendly with the McVays. It goes beyond the normal source/journalist dynamic and its getting worse. 

[Mythos27]

Just now, oldschool said:

 

Other than cheating on his wife, Vrabel did nothing wrong by manipulating a reporter to get his message out. all teams do this to a certain degree. Its how sports and political journalism operate. What Vrabel did was morally wrong, What Russini did was morally and ethically wrong because she crossed the line on how she covered him across numerous stops which compromised her impartiality.

 

That being said, This story has somewhat cast the light on how the NFL insiders operate. They post stories agents tell them too to garner favor and get scoops. Or you have guys like Schrager who went to McVay's wedding and used that as a backdrop for a bio on McVay. Schrager and his wife were wedding guests and clearly friendly with the McVays. It goes beyond the normal source/journalist dynamic and its getting worse. 

I wouldn't say that manipulating the media to get your version (which might or might not be true) is doing "nothing wrong". That's morally and ethically wrong too and just because it's commonplace that does not make it any less wrong. What Russini did is worse IMO and she deserves consequences but I will say that the sexual aspect of this makes this story take on a worse tint than it logically should. You don't have to be blowing someone to be a completely unethical shill for them and from what I gather many male insiders are exactly that. Things always get magnified when there are sexual implications because humans are still operating with their lizard brain first and foremost but at it's core, if this is a story of journalistic standards/integrity then Russini isn't actually much worse than many of her male colleagues supposedly are. The difference is we don't have hard evidence about them yet. Florio made a good point that's it's in a lot of insiders' best interests to say away from this issue lest their chumminess come under scrutiny. 

[oldschool]

2 minutes ago, Mythos27 said:

I wouldn't say that manipulating the media to get your version (which might or might not be true) is doing "nothing wrong". That's morally and ethically wrong too and just because it's commonplace that does not make it any less wrong. What Russini did is worse IMO and she deserves consequences but I will say that the sexual aspect of this makes this story take on a worse tint than it logically should. You don't have to be blowing someone to be a completely unethical shill for them and from what I gather many male insiders are exactly that. Things always get magnified when there are sexual implications because humans are still operating with their lizard brain first and foremost but at it's core, if this is a story of journalistic standards/integrity then Russini isn't actually much worse than many of her male colleagues supposedly are. The difference is we don't have hard evidence about them yet. Florio made a good point that's it's in a lot of insiders' best interests to say away from this issue lest their chumminess come under scrutiny. 

 

Thats the rub isn't it though? If it came out Schefter or Rapaport were banging some team exec and then putting out favorable stories about them, it would be a massive story. 

[Mythos27]

Just now, oldschool said:

 

Thats the rub isn't it though? If it came out Schefter or Rapaport were banging some team exec and then putting out favorable stories about them, it would be a massive story. 

Very true. But what I'm suggesting is that something like say, Rapaport putting out a blatant lie as a favor to a source that happens to be an agent because they're also close personal friends is every bit as wrong as what Russini is being accused of doing. If something like that came to light there might be consequences but I suspect no where near the level of uproar we're seeing in this case because it lacks the titillation that comes along with even the implication of sex. To hear some tell it, the industry is already full of "Russinis" in that sense. 

[Jamalisms]

52 minutes ago, NashvilleNinja said:

 

Hmm... telling on yourself here a little, JB?

 

 

 

I'm the least anonymous person here. I use my really name, "NashvilleNinja", I share personal details about where I live and what field I work in, I meet up with people in real life (some people run from that), I am very much *not* anonymous. 

 

Other than that, very good point.

[SleepingTitan]

16 hours ago, Jamalisms said:

 

I made a comment about power dynamics but this is much stronger than what I was trying to say.

 

I do think a reporter looking for insider information is not on equal footing with a coach. Florio talked about it but you have to do certain things to be one of the few with insider status and they can cut you off at any time if you're not presenting info how they want (he used himself as an example). It may be a choice if she's greasing the wheels by "whoring her way to prominence" or however you want to word what's been suggested over and over in this thread ... but that simply proves out who is in control. 

 

With that said, it's petty easy to come to different opinions on how strong the imbalance is.

Please don't metoo this thread. This is fun

[scine09]

Anyone remember how Vrabel handled the Covid issue in 2020 when there were rumors about major penalties to the team and fans were on edge?  Crickets.

[Mythos27]

5 minutes ago, Jamalisms said:

 

I'm the least anonymous person here. I use my really name, "NashvilleNinja", I share personal details about where I live and what field I work in, I meet up with people in real life (some people run from that), I am very much *not* anonymous. 

 

Other than that, very good point.

I interpreted his comment as an insinuation that you know posters' personal information such as their name thus people "thinking" they are anonymous but really aren't at least to you. 

[Jamalisms]

17 minutes ago, Mythos27 said:

Very true. But what I'm suggesting is that something like say, Rapaport putting out a blatant lie as a favor to a source that happens to be an agent because they're also close personal friends is every bit as wrong as what Russini is being accused of doing. If something like that came to light there might be consequences but I suspect no where near the level of uproar we're seeing in this case because it lacks the titillation that comes along with even the implication of sex. To hear some tell it, the industry is already full of "Russinis" in that sense. 

 

People will accept most social payment and submission to teams and sources in order to get stories ... but not sex. Chum up to them in almost any way to curry favor, feed fake stories, share or withhold select details ... send a report to a source and call him "Mr. Editor" *ahem* when you ask if he wants anything changed ... people move on. Sex gets involved? Interest and uproar.

 

And I think that's appropriate. Allowing sex or sexual favors to be part of the equation for how to get or maintain relationships puts people at risk.

 

... which is why I keep pointing out that Vrabel has, allegedly, dabbled in something problematic ... not that anybody apparently cares to hear that.

[Jamalisms]

Just now, Mythos27 said:

I interpreted his comment as an insinuation that you know posters' personal information such as their name thus people "thinking" they are anonymous but really aren't at least to you. 

 

I only know a select few and most of them have their name in their handle. People like Oldschool are very protective of their identity and others offer nothing truly personal. I don't know your name or NNs or 99% of posters.

 

I do have access to emails but I don't view that stuff unless by happenstance (shows in profiles to me) or as necessary to contact them ... and the only time I recall doing that was to privately tell someone that using a government email probably isn't the best idea.

[NashvilleNinja]

1 minute ago, Mythos27 said:

I interpreted his comment as an insinuation that you know posters' personal information such as their name thus people "thinking" they are anonymous but really aren't at least to you. 

 

Well, that was the joke anyway. That he's some super hacker, prying into everyone's personal info. But his sense of humor is up on blocks like some classic car that never gets driven. He also took the opportunity to peacock about how un-anonymous he is.

[Mythos27]

2 minutes ago, Jamalisms said:

 

People will accept most social payment and submission to teams and sources in order to get stories ... but not sex. Chum up to them in almost any way to curry favor, feed fake stories, share or withhold select details ... send a report to a source and call him "Mr. Editor" *ahem* when you ask if he wants anything changed ... people move on. Sex gets involved? Interest and uproar.

 

And I think that's appropriate. Allowing sex or sexual favors to be part of the equation for how to get or maintain relationships puts people at risk.

 

... which is why I keep pointing out that Vrabel has, allegedly, dabbled in something problematic ... not that anybody apparently cares to hear that.

For sure. I wouldn't ever argue that we should treat trading sexual relationships for access any less harshly; I'd argue in favor of elevating the other ways of access journalism to be just as scandalous. It's an unrealistic request for the tabloid-obsessed masses but that's how I already look at the issue. 

[SleepingTitan]

Vrabel has been dicking her for years. These pictures don't show a woman giving sex for scoops. This is a couple having an affair, but they weren't ready to end their marriages and take it public. 

[SleepingTitan]

And my guess is that one of the opposing spouses or both hired a PI. My guess would be Russini's husband because of how she's been shit to him publicly for years. He knew he could sully her career that she bases her self-esteem on and probably end the relationship with Vrabel at the same time. 

[Justafan]

7 minutes ago, Mythos27 said:

For sure. I wouldn't ever argue that we should treat trading sexual relationships for access any less harshly; I'd argue in favor of elevating the other ways of access journalism to be just as scandalous. It's an unrealistic request for the tabloid-obsessed masses but that's how I already look at the issue. 

I think it's viewed more scandalous because it is. 

 

I mean, putting something out there to foster a relationship or do a solid for a friend can be condemned but it is a very far cry from having an elicit affair or trading sexual favors for special treatment.