For 18 years, Jay Glazer has hosted an annual pool party for NFL head coaches at the league\u2019s owners meetings, and Jeff Pearlman wants to know why nobody has ever had a problem with it.<\/p>\n
On a recent TikTok,<\/a> the veteran sportswriter \u2014 who has been one of the more thoughtful outside voices on the Dianna Russini<\/a> story since it broke \u2014 responded to a conversation Jemele Hill<\/a> was having about Glazer and the industry\u2019s selective outrage over source relationships. When he first weighed in back last month, before Russini had resigned<\/a> and before the extent of her relationship<\/a> with Mike Vrabel<\/a> had fully come out, Pearlman framed the situation as a painful double standard<\/a> while stopping short of saying her career should be over. He\u2019s not stopping short anymore.<\/p>\n \u201cI think Dianna Russini shouldn\u2019t work anymore in this business, I do. I think it\u2019s bullsh*t,\u201d Pearlman said. \u201cBut, man, do we make allowances for men. We make so many allowances for men. Jay Glazer is the perfect example. You know why Jay Glazer isn\u2019t having sex with the athletes? Because he\u2019s a heterosexual male and he covers men, otherwise, he\u2019s doing anything but. \u2018Hey, come to my BBQ. Hey, let me work you out. Hey, you\u2019re my buddy. Hey, let\u2019s hang out. Hey, tell me stuff, it\u2019s OK.\u2019 Like, that\u2019s access journalism 101. That\u2019s exchanging for exchanging. That\u2019s exactly what he does.\u201d<\/p>\n @jeffpearlmanauthor<\/a> Why does Jay Glazer eternally receive a free pass for his intimate relationships with athletes? #dianarussinni<\/a> #jayglazer<\/a> #nfl<\/a> #media<\/a> #mikevrabel<\/a> \u266c original sound \u2013 Jeff Pearlman<\/a><\/p>\n It\u2019s worth remembering what was happening at those owners\u2019 meetings this year. As Pablo Torre recently reported<\/a>, Russini and Vrabel were seen hosting a competing party directly across the pool from Glazer\u2019s coaches, who were gathering in March. It was an almost absurdly literal illustration of what Pearlman is now saying outright, that what Russini was doing and what Glazer does look remarkably similar from a distance, with the key difference being who was involved and how far the relationship went.<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s no excusing Dianna Russini. It\u2019s a bullsh*t move. She deserves to lose her job,\u201d Pearlman continued. \u201cIt\u2019s just weird how we\u2019re OK because it\u2019s men being pals with men kind of thing. Like Jay Glazer, honestly, people now make allowances; they say, \u2018Well, he\u2019s not a reporter. He\u2019s a fact-finder\u2026\u2019 But it\u2019s the same bullsh*t. It\u2019s the exact same bullsh*t. You\u2019re building intimate relationships with sources, sources are giving you information, and in exchange for that intimate relationship, you will protect them. What\u2019s different besides you\u2019re not having your dick in someone\u2019s hand? What\u2019s the difference?\u201d<\/p>\n Pearlman isn\u2019t saying Russini and Glazer did the same thing. He\u2019s saying the industry has never applied the same level of scrutiny to the transactional nature of male access journalism that it applied to Russini the moment those photos went public. Nobody spent weeks auditing Glazer\u2019s old reporting for favorable coverage of coaches he barbecues with every spring. Nobody asked what Adam Schefter<\/a>, Ian Rapoport<\/a>, Shams Charania<\/a>, or Adrian Wojnarowski<\/a> gave up in exchange for the source relationships that made their careers.<\/p>\n The access game has always involved give and take \u2014 information in exchange for intimacy, access in exchange for protection \u2014 and the sports media world has been comfortable treating that as just how things work, right up until Dianna Russini was caught by Page Six on a rooftop bungalow at an Arizona resort with a married NFL head coach.<\/p>\n \u201cI just want to say: Dianna Russini deserved it, but why are we OK with trading of favors in sports just because it\u2019s two men?\u201d he added. \u201cIt\u2019s just weird. I just don\u2019t think it\u2019s right. And we need to really reevaluate what we\u2019re doing here, from the whole Shams thing and the Woj thing, and the Jay Glazer thing, and the exchange of intimate relationships, friendships, hanging out\u2026 Just because you\u2019re not having sex doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s not intimate in a certain way.\u201d<\/p>\n \t