Vrabel and Russini

[IsntLifeFunny]

1 hour ago, Mythos27 said:

The puritanical attitudes in this country make it so hard for people to see reason when sex gets involved. If an insider kills a story because a source sucked his dick vs because a source had a player/client go to his kid's 6th birthday party and sign autographs the audience that the journalist is supposed to be beholden to still got cheated and journalistic integrity was violated just as badly. The fact that some of you see it as so vastly different goes to the point @Jamalisms is making. No one is saying they're the same but to act as if one is SO much worse than the other when the outcome of both actions is the same is wild. The story here isn't the infidelity; half of you mofos have either cheated or been cheated on. The story is the way that this illicit sexual relationship possibly affected the agenda of her reporting, which is why it becomes necessary to ask how compromised are her male counterparts given the cozy relationships they have with their sources. 

What? The bitch was dogging her spouse while having a love child with Vrabel. This is really far past anything I've ever seen. Flings happen, pockets are greased in heterosexual relationship, all of that. 

 

This is singularly unique to be shit talking your spouses, getting off on that kind of noise, and having this type of affair. No, Russini is a POS and so is Vrabel. This is not like other journalists...and it isn't like other coaches who get side action too. It is reprehensible. 

 

So collapsing the argument to 'woman fucked a man to further her career. Well that happens all the time with men and isn't acknowledged' is so far from reality because the depths of depravity are insane here. The comparison is dog shit. 

[Mythos27]

1 hour ago, Justafan said:

It’s not really fair to attack people for not going deeper on a message board. It’s hard to convey deep thoughts and keep posts reasonable in length. 
 

Also, the difference IS big. Certainly larger than you are insinuating here and what the author of the article was insinuating as well. 
 

It’s like comparing one of your buddies going to a party without you versus sleeping with your sister. I mean, what the heck are we talking about here? 

They problem is that the difference you're interpreting is emotional and rooted in your feelings about sexual morality. This isn't a dig, it's where most people's indignation regarding this story is coming from. What I'm asking people to do is put that aside for a second and consider that the more important aspect of this is the journalistic integrity piece because that's the part that actually directly affects the journalist's audience. 

 

Your example of the friends going with out you vs smashing your sister doesn't hold water for one simple reason; the outcomes are wildly different. Your sister doesn't get banged out by your buddies in one of those outcomes. In each of the examples I laid out, the public's trust is violated because an inappropriate relationship obscured the truth. I hope that you can see the very substantive different in the two comparisons. 

 

Put more simply; Russini's career isn't in the toilet because she violated her husband's trust in the worst ways imaginable. She's out of a job because no reasonable person will ever consider her impartial or reliable again. I've said this before and I'll say it again; the sexual titillation is the sizzle but the lack of journalistic integrity is the steak. 

[Callidus]

46 minutes ago, SleepingTitan said:

We needed this

Jamal needed it. Hes way to wound up lately. 

[Mythos27]

2 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

What? The bitch was dogging her spouse while having a love child with Vrabel. This is really far past anything I've ever seen. Flings happen, pockets are greased in heterosexual relationship, all of that. 

 

This is singularly unique to be shit talking your spouses, getting off on that kind of noise, and having this type of affair. No, Russini is a POS and so is Vrabel. This is not like other journalists...and it isn't like other coaches who get side action too. It is reprehensible. 

 

So collapsing the argument to 'woman fucked a man to further her career. Well that happens all the time with men and isn't acknowledged' is so far from reality because the depths of depravity are insane here. The comparison is dog shit. 

Where have I argued otherwise? 

[IsntLifeFunny]

1 hour ago, rns90 said:

There’s a boundary crossed/broken when you sleep with a source vs guys hanging out together .

 

One , is the physical intimacy aspect that makes it really personal and impossible to be objective . The other event is rather extremely casual in comparison.

 

I really wish there were an easier way to explain this.

It isn't just about that either, though we agree. This is egregious behavior. If it were some female journalist sucking a dick to get a scoop then the mention of how this interaction works in heterosexual relationships would be a good point. It isn't here. At all. 

 

If the point is to open a conversation about the topic, well this isn't the situation to start it with.

[IsntLifeFunny]

2 minutes ago, Mythos27 said:

Where have I argued otherwise? 

That the argument is collapsing into the differences between how men and women are handled in these situations. That is not the case here in terms of journalists even if admitting sex is a different form. This wasn't sex. This was sadistic in many ways that they got off, her in particular, with trashing her spouse on live air and then had a love child with him (that's 100% his baby). 

 

The conversation itself of bringing up equivalences in the heterosexual male dominated world of journalism to females is a real discussion. It happening here distorts and collapses the entire engagement because of the nature of the offense. She wasn't just fucking him. That's a completely and totally different discussion if she were. 

[Mythos27]

Let's be real for a second. If it came out that Is Glazer, Schefter, etc were cheating on their beards and sucking dick for stories, the mentions of infidelity/ lack of integrity would be minimal and the main focus would be about how gay they all are and everyone here knows it. Let's just be real about how people actually deal with these kinds of stories.  Whenever sex is involved, it's all people can focus on..

[IsntLifeFunny]

8 minutes ago, Mythos27 said:

They problem is that the difference you're interpreting is emotional and rooted in your feelings about sexual morality. This isn't a dig, it's where most people's indignation regarding this story is coming from. What I'm asking people to do is put that aside for a second and consider that the more important aspect of this is the journalistic integrity piece because that's the part that actually directly affects the journalist's audience. 

 

Your example of the friends going with out you vs smashing your sister doesn't hold water for one simple reason; the outcomes are wildly different. Your sister doesn't get banged out by your buddies in one of those outcomes. In each of the examples I laid out, the public's trust is violated because an inappropriate relationship obscured the truth. I hope that you can see the very substantive different in the two comparisons. 

 

Put more simply; Russini's career isn't in the toilet because she violated her husband's trust in the worst ways imaginable. She's out of a job because no reasonable person will ever consider her impartial or reliable again. I've said this before and I'll say it again; the sexual titillation is the sizzle but the lack of journalistic integrity is the steak. 

We disagree completely only because this situation is singular. If she were have to been fired because of a fling and Vrabel maintained power then the juxtaposition would be worth a conversation. Vrabel not getting fired or resigning is a real conversation worth having. How other journalists grease pockets is not a fair discussion because of the gravity and depravity of how they handled themselves. 

[rns90]

4 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

It isn't just about that either, though we agree. This is egregious behavior. If it were some female journalist sucking a dick to get a scoop then the mention of how this interaction works in heterosexual relationships would be a good point. It isn't here. At all. 

 

If the point is to open a conversation about the topic, well this isn't the situation to start it with.

In terms of journalism/reporting yeah, this goes beyond getting a scoop .    Usually you just relay whatever the scoop is from the source POV.

 

She became his “Iraqi defense minister” and spread whatever propaganda he wanted put out there.

 

That’s not even taking into consideration the other aspects of this story.

[Mythos27]

1 minute ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

That the argument is collapsing into the differences between how men and women are handled in these situations. That is not the case here in terms of journalists even if admitting sex is a different form. This wasn't sex. This was sadistic in many ways that they got off, her in particular, with trashing her spouse on live air and then had a love child with him (that's 100% his baby). 

 

The conversation itself of bringing up equivalences in the heterosexual male dominated world of journalism to females is a real discussion. It happening here distorts and collapses the entire engagement because of the nature of the offense. She wasn't just fucking him. That's a completely and totally different discussion if she were. 

And why are we not allowed to have that conversation here? The only reason the affair is relevant to football is because of how obvious it makes it that Russini was compromised. 

[IsntLifeFunny]

Just now, rns90 said:

In terms of journalism/reporting yeah, this goes beyond getting a scoop .    Usually you just relay whatever the scoop is from the source POV.

 

She became his “Iraqi defense minister” and spread whatever propaganda he wanted put out there.

 

That’s not even taking into consideration the other aspects of this story.

Correct. It goes deep on all of the sides, and like I said I cannot come up with anything resembling this situation. 

[IsntLifeFunny]

Just now, Mythos27 said:

And why are we not allowed to have that conversation here? The only reason the affair is relevant to football is because of how obvious it makes it that Russini was compromised. 

Of course you can, but the conversation will rightly fully get annihilated, because it isn't apples to apples at all. A guy going to a 6th grader's birthday party isn't equivalent in any way to being a ruthless bitch flaunting her affair, having a love child, and mixing her power and status with those types of inside scoops. It simply isn't the same.  

[OnsideKick]

The original argument was that we had to wait and see if something more was going on and that behavior like that was normal for people who aren't married to each other.  When further details came out, the goalposts were moved to not being allowed to comment on the character of those involved.   

[IsntLifeFunny]

1 hour ago, SleepingTitan said:

No doubt she was gobbling wood for access, and she got splintered w/Vrabel love. I think he did too. 

 

If they don't each divorce and get married to each other, she's gonna need to be paid a handsome sum to go away. Otherwise, she's got a huge story to tell about sex for stories, sexual harassment, and how she went down the wrong path because of the sexism in the NFL. I would think Netflix might be interested in something like a tell-all. Publishers will be chomping. Vrabel better not fuck this up anymore than he already has. 

@Mythos27 now this is a better understanding/discussion in my opinion. It is not making what male journalist do for inside scoops equivalent. The scope is potentially inverted into what women have to do. And that is an all together better discussion when directly talking about this situation. 

[Mythos27]

1 minute ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

We disagree completely only because this situation is singular. If she were have to been fired because of a fling and Vrabel maintained power then the juxtaposition would be worth a conversation. Vrabel not getting fired or resigning is a real conversation worth having. How other journalists grease pockets is not a fair discussion because of the gravity and depravity of how they handled themselves. 

I disagree completely but it's because we are focused on different things. You're more appalled by the taudrey details of the affair, (as most people are) while I'm more appalled by how the nature of their relationship influenced the reporting we got from her. I'm not her husband so her fucking Vrabel for 6+ years isn't a betrayal to me but her feeding us biased narratives and taking advantage of my trust IS a direct betrayal so it matters more.

 

The details of her dealings are disgusting and I discussed them plenty early on but it's been a month now and I don't think the conversation broadening beyond slut- shaming is a bad thing nor do I think think it warrants shutting down a conversation.