Bodycam footage has surfaced showing Dianna Russini’s account about FaceTiming an NFL coach to avoid a ticket for texting while driving was not true, putting the New York Times under pressure over how quickly it published and why it hasn’t corrected the record
Last week. the New York Times ran a lengthy article built around a single. cinematic detail: former New York Times reporter Dianna Russini said she FaceTimed an NFL coach as a bid to get out of a ticket for texting while driving. It wasn’t presented as a minor aside. The Times treated her account as gospel truth. and it even included a statement from a New York Times Company spokesperson labeling the effort to avoid a ticket as “unacceptable conduct.”.
Now bodycam footage has surfaced that contradicts Russini’s story. The tension isn’t just about what happened in the moment—it’s about what happens after publication, when a newsroom has already declared the narrative settled.
The first question is the one readers can’t unsee: why didn’t the Times get the bodycam video before publishing the Russini article?. Adam Herbets of the Center Square obtained the footage. With that in mind. the Times appears to have moved forward without the one piece of evidence that would have either confirmed or destroyed the FaceTime claim.
The second question is simpler, and harder: why hasn’t the article been corrected? As of the posting of this write-up, the original item has not been revised to reflect that the bodycam footage has come to light—and that, according to the footage, there was no FaceTime.
The New York Times’ own rules are explicit. In its Ethics in Journalism handbook. the paper says: “Accuracy is the foundation of our credibility. so carefully checking facts is a fundamental responsibility of every staff member. It is our policy to correct our errors, large and small, as soon as we become aware of them.”.
The story around Russini has also carried prior reasons for skepticism, which only makes the current contradiction sharper. The write-up points to her response to Sedona photos involving Patriots coach Mike Vrabel: she waited two days to alert her bosses. and she gave a strong and arguably strident statement later undermined by photos taken in March 2020. alongside multiple comments from Vrabel himself. It also raises the possibility that she didn’t provide her immediate supervisor. Steven Ginsberg. all of the photos before he crafted and issued a strong statement of support for her.
There’s also the basic question that any reader would ask: if the Times was going to make the FaceTime story the hook for a long article, shouldn’t it have tried to determine which coach—if any—was contacted?
All of it lands in a wider. unresolved dispute that the write-up describes as lingering tension between the New York Times and the Athletic. That internal consternation, it says, has roots in a perception inside the Times that the Athletic operates under looser standards. If the Times article about a former Athletic reporter was the product of a looser style of journalism. the situation becomes awkward in the extreme.
Overhead hangs the impending release of an internal investigation report from the Athletic—an investigation described as one that produced a finding tied to “unacceptable conduct.” The write-up frames the bodycam footage as a new wrinkle that makes readers wonder what that report will say. or refuse to say. now that the full truth—at least as it relates to the FaceTime claim—remains unacknowledged by the Times.
If the Athletic does publish its findings soon, the timing itself could matter: the write-up suggests the most convenient window for a major bad-news dump may be coming soon, potentially getting swallowed by the hard reset of the July 4 weekend.
Dianna Russini New York Times bodycam footage Mike Vrabel Steven Ginsberg Patriots texting while driving FaceTiming coach Center Square Adam Herbets Athletic investigation