The NFL’s biggest story of the week has sparked plenty of debates and discussions, for those in the media who have bothered to mention it.
Here’s one question that has emerged, given that the New York Times has now essentially suspended Dianna Russini in the aftermath of the publication by the New York Post of photos including Russini and Patriots coach Mike Vrabel: Is there a double standard for the two of them?
The obvious answer is yes. That’s because different standards apply to different jobs.
The Athletic, which is owned and operated by the Times, presumably has a long list of policies and procedures. One of them possibly covers fraternization with sources. If so, there’s a line that can’t be crossed. The photos allow for a reasonable person to conclude that, at a minimum, she may have been getting too close to that line.
Then there’s the obligation that most companies have to provide accurate and truthful information when internal questions emerge. If (and obviously no one knows the truth at this point) the Times suspects that anything she said to her employer when first asked about the photos may not have been the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, that creates a separate basis for scrutiny and, potentially, discipline.
For Vrabel, there’s possibly no policy regarding fraternization with reporters. While his employment contract or the Patriots’ internal policies possibly include something that could be characterized as barring a too-cozy relationship with someone covering the team or the league, it’s far more common for a news outlet to create clear standards regarding the behavior of a reporter in relation to a source than it is for a sports team to create clear standards regarding the behavior of a coach in relation to a reporter.
There could be other issues for Vrabel, based on the facts. If (and this is only an example, not an accusation) Vrabel was affirmatively using Russini to agitate for an A.J. Brown trade with the Eagles on the most favorable terms possible to the Patriots, the tampering rule could potentially apply. (Of course, the NFL rarely enforces the tampering rule.) Or if (and, again, this is only an example, not an accusation) Russini was sharing material, non-public information harvested from other teams with Vrabel at his request, that could be a separate problem.
Also, all responsible American employers have sexual harassment policies. Although the situation becomes more complicated when one of the parties is not an employee, most policies regarding quid pro quo harassment or hostile work environment harassment apply as to non-employees. (If, for example, a coach — or a player — were making persistent derogatory comments to a female reporter during press conferences or in the locker room, that would provide a basis for investigation, discipline, and/or litigation.)
From the league’s perspective, the Personal Conduct Policy contains this vague, general, catch-all provision: “Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL personnel.”
It’s possible, if not likely, that any rules Vrabel may or may not have broken are far more vague than the rules the Times has put in place regarding the interactions between reporters and sources.
As to the possibility (again, this isn’t an accusation) that Vrabel’s statement to the Post wasn’t true and accurate, coaches lie all the time. About everything. It goes with the job. The truth can compromise strategic goals. (For example, it’s entirely possible that quarterback Drake Maye played Super Bowl LX with a lingering shoulder injury that was downplayed or concealed by Vrabel and the rest of the organization.) As to whether Vrabel told the truth to the Patriots, that’s something that could (in theory) become an issue.
If Vrabel’s overall status with the Patriots were currently tenuous, could any of this be something that causes the team to mobilize in an effort to justify termination, perhaps for cause? Maybe. Whether anything would stick depends on the clarity of the policies and the terms of his contract.
The point for now is this. There are two different standards. Because the two jobs are fundamentally different.
The same thing would apply to other situations regarding a reporter’s methods for gathering information. If, for example, a reporter deliberately uses their social-media platforms to promote the interests of a source in order to promote the free flow of information from the source, the reporter would potentially be violating a rule or two that applies to the reporter. The source likely would not be violating a rule that applies to the source.
Likewise, if a reporter is paying a source for information, the reporter would be violating a rule applicable to the reporter’s employment. The source possibly would not be violating any rules applicable to the source’s specific job by taking it.
Two jobs. Two standards.
Again, none of that means Vrabel is in the clear. And it’s fair to ask whether the Patriots and/or the league will choose not to even bother to explore whether he broke any potentially relevant rules. But the basic nature of his position makes any basis for scrutiny far less obvious than the nature of a reporter’s job does.
Read the full article here