Dianna Russini has not been publicly heard from in weeks, ever since the scandal with New England Patriots head coach Mike Vrabel went nuclear.<\/p>\n
After issuing a defiant resignation letter<\/a> to The Athletic in the immediate aftermath of intimate photos of the pair being published by the New York Post, Russini deleted or locked her social accounts<\/a> when more evidence of the apparent affair came to light.<\/p>\n It\u2019s been all quiet on the Russini-Vrabel front ever since the Patriots coach took a day off from the NFL Draft to focus on his family. But even after Vrabel\u2019s half-hearted attempt at accountability<\/a> saw him enter the spotlight, Russini has still been silent.<\/p>\n However, the New York Times, the parent company of Russin\u2019s outlet at The Athletic, published a lengthy report on the saga this week. There wasn\u2019t a lot of new information in the piece, save for details on Russini\u2019s salary<\/a> and some behind-the-scenes machinations at The Athletic and the Times.<\/p>\n There were several surreal elements of the deep dive from the Times<\/a> into a star personality that was involved in a massive controversy while under their umbrella. For starters, executives from both The Athletic and the Times did not comment in the piece. Instead, Times spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha is quoted repeatedly while Athletic executive editor Steven Ginsberg, publisher David Perpich, and NYT chief executive Meredith Kopit Levien were not available for interviews.<\/p>\n Then there\u2019s the detail of what happened when Times reporters Katherine Rosman and Ken Belson reached out to Russini personally regarding the story. They detailed that Russini retroactively asked not to be quoted on the record, which was not agreed to beforehand. That would seem to be a non-starter for anyone with journalistic experience. The insider also went directly to the top of Times management, to Levien, to complain, but to no avail. But one of the things Russini said that she was quoted on may give a clue as to where she goes next, if and when she finally does come back into the public eye.<\/p>\n Dianna Russini called herself a \u201cformer journalist\u201d in text messages with a Times reporter.<\/p>\n In early May, after The Times began reporting this article, Ms. Russini responded to a reporter\u2019s request for an interview via text message. She cited the \u201cintense scrutiny and personal attacks\u201d she had faced, saying, \u201cThis has had a significant impact on my life, both professionally and personally.\u201d At the end of the message, referring to herself as a \u201cformer journalist,\u201d Ms. Russini asked the reporter not to quote from the text.<\/p>\n What\u2019s next for Dianna Russini has been the subject of intense speculation ever since the story about her relationship with Mike Vrabel dropped. Given just how shocking and salacious the story has been, and how much it seems to go against many tenets of journalistic integrity, it\u2019s hard to see Russini returning to the industry<\/a> in a mainstream news role similar to the one she had.<\/p>\n