Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Megan Twohey published something on musk in the NYT today!!

That's a big story!

It is. It’s focused on his drug use. What’s interesting is that despite having multiple sources going back years about his drug use, and it being previously reported in legit outlets like the WSJ, they apparently still gave him/his lawyer data to respond to the allegations before they published.

But Baldoni and the PR people (private figures) got less than 12 hours on a Friday night around the holidays…?

Why? How?

^^ oops. Meant they gave Musk DAYS to respond

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Megan Twohey published something on musk in the NYT today!!

That's a big story!

It is. It’s focused on his drug use. What’s interesting is that despite having multiple sources going back years about his drug use, and it being previously reported in legit outlets like the WSJ, they apparently still gave him/his lawyer data to respond to the allegations before they published.

But Baldoni and the PR people (private figures) got less than 12 hours on a Friday night around the holidays…?

Why? How?

Also not published until the day after Musk “left” his government position. The NYTimes sucks these days. As mentioned above WSJ has already published several articles on Musk’s drug use, the last being in January, I think.

PP I’ll never understand the Blake piece… so shoddy and for her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still not a peep from Blake on Kevin Costner. I thought she wanted to be the voice for women?

Uh, the news came out today. Where's Baldoni? I thought his whole thing was holding me accountable for their treatment if women?

Justin’s never proclaimed himself to be the voice of victims of SH or SA. But Blake on the other hand just gave a long speech at the time 100 gala saying just that. Now another woman much less powerful than her comes out against an A lister and she’s quiet as a church mouse, just like she was with Harvey and Woody. I guess she stands up for “victims” only when she’s trying to steal a movie.

I’m not sure this is a sincere argument. But in case it is, I don’t think this victim would want the attention of Blake Lively taking her side right now. Do you? If Lively actually did this, wouldn’t you criticize her for performing support to draw attention to herself?

Neutral DP. I think you're probably right that Baldoni fans would criticize her either way, but it's also fair to question why she takes up the mantle of supporting all women and then doesn't comment when the accused is a big Hollywood name. That would be sort of gross. It's a pretty similar situation regarding the lack of IC and unscripted intimate scenes being added, so reasonable to think Lively would support. OTOH I'd hate to see the Baldoni fans flood comment threats with hate for this woman.

DP but I think it's absurd to expect Blake or her legal team to publicly comment on this woman's lawsuit the day the news breaks, and I do think that would be performative and attention seeking if she did it.

The fact patterns are so similar that I think it's highly likely the stunt woman's lawsuit was at least in part inspired by Lively's. The questions of whether it is sexual harassment to push an actress (or stunt woman) to do unscripted nudity or intimacy haven't really been litigated before, and the question of when it is necessary for an intimacy coordinator to be on set and what their job is has also not really been legally explored. Until Lively's lawsuit. So to me there is no way that, at a minimum, the stunt woman's lawyers have not read Lively's complaint and explored the case law and the arguments she is leaning on in her case.

In that way, Lively's lawsuit *is* functioning as a form of support for the stunt woman, whether they ever touch base publicly or privately (and I expect they likely will because they are alleging such similar things). This is actually one of the main arguments in favor of someone like Lively, who is powerful and wealthy and has a lot of industry support, coming forward and calling out this behavior -- it can make it easier for people like this stunt woman, who have none of those resources, to come forward as well. So even if Lively never publicly says she supports this lawsuit, she has shown through her actions that she believes women on movie sets deserve better than what this stunt woman experienced on set. That is actually more meaningful than a public statement, IMO.

People can criticize Blake all they want but what if her lawsuit leads to more actresses on films sets speaking up when they are asked to do nudity that wasn't in the script, when the director or a scene partner pushes a form of intimacy that feels uncomfortable or bad to them without discussing it first or involving an IC? What if Blake's lawsuit leads to the industry adopting stricter industry standards for the filming of nudity and intimacy, and to a better understanding that "intimacy" can involve any scene where an actor's body is put in an intimate or compromised position (such as simulating childbirth or medical procedures)? I think all of that would be a net positive for Hollywood and for women in Hollywood. I think a lot of actresses, regardless of how they feel about Blake personally or how they view this particular case, would be happy to see those changes. And that's not even getting into the the retaliation aspects of her lawsuit, which I think are of particular interest to celebrity women at all levels who know how easy it is to harm their livelihoods and their personal lives by plugging into the online misogyny generator and focusing it on a famous woman.

This is what it means when we say "women helping women." This is why I think her lawsuit is important and fully support her in bringing these allegations and pursuing legal remedies. This could change things for women for the better in a way that hashtags and online info campaigns can't.

These are great point! I agree with you. Specifically, even if Lively doesn’t make some public statement of support right now which might unintentionally encourage Baldoni supporters to attack this victim also, Lively’s suit itself may already have helped in a way by bringing public attention to these nudity and intimacy issues.

I don’t really know if Lively should publicly support this victim and/or whether the victim would even want it. And I look at the terrible online beating that Dorsey is getting right now, and just have a lot of respect for former victims like her and Amber Heard who have come out in support of Lively despite the cost to them online. Nerves of steel, these women.

NP. I don't agree with you and here's why. It's been my belief that the law doesn't concave to benign actions. What I mean by this is that there is a range of what can be included as harrassment. Is it a glance (very benign and perhaps unprovable) or is it constant contact at all hours of the day/night suggesting sexual behaviors and engagements (not benign and a high level of discomfort + provable)? I want to believe from everything I know about the law, that the courts use a reasonableness standard and asks of juries to do so as well. And I tend to believe that juries get it right in a lot of cases -- they tend to pass on the benign and unprovable, but support strong legal action for intentional, abusive and/or egregious behavior. Again, not always, but in many cases.

I think that in applying this rational to the Baldoni case and the new Costner stunt woman case, I think you have two opposite ranges of accused behavior. There is the "he looked at me the wrong way/made me feel uncomfortable and I think it could be SH" Blake behavior versus the "he raped me in a scene" without an IC behavior. Juries will see the difference and imo will only support strong legal action for the behavior that is most egregious to set that behavior as a bar.

In wanting to punish someone harshly for lukewarm/non-existent behavior, you are setting a really bad bar that will be ripe for overturning because it simply is not reasonable. And if there is anything that I know about American law, is that it always finds its way back to the reasonableness standard.

That's the way I see it with court cases, and that's why I assert that Baldoni would win if the case is given to a jury. No reasonable person would argue that the standards that the law has set for SH is being met with Blake's accusations. Nowhere even close.

Plus, if the law were to concede that what Blake is accusing amounts to SH, the bar will be lowered to even lesser actions as constituting SH. E.g., if a guy even has the thought of looking Blake's way without an IC present, it would be considered SH. The courts don't intend that to be the case at all. Hence my views on Baldoni having the stronger case. There is just not a lot of evidence that Blake has shown to support any decent notion of SH.

And yes, I can see how the lawyers for this new case (and probably even more that are waiting to see the outcome of Baldoni) are hoping that Blake's case provides the opening needed for their cases to succeed. At the same time, having two cases at opposite ends of the spectrum on SH/SA is not a good thing for Blake, especially given that hers is the one alleging the weakest action.

If we are playing match the posts, I think this is the same person who thought Lively defenders were tracking her location somehow via her comments, fwiw.

And for to know that, it must mean that I am correct. You are the Lively poster who is tracking us. You’ve made a few comments directed at me after I’ve made a post. No one else but me would know this, so I know that you are reading our IP addresses.

I haven’t been on this site all day, and I’m writing now very differently, and on a legal point, which I rarely ever do.

I get that you are following me (following us all). The question remains “why would a dcum mom track random commenters on a supposedly anonymous website? I can’t think of too many moms who would go to such lengths, unless you are not a mom (!), and unless you are broadcasting who I am to others who may be tracking us.

I will contact Jeff and I will make an action against this.

Everyone else, as I’ve said before, your IP is being tracked.

I’m at least glad that over the past hundred of pages or so, several of you have supported my comments.

But it is sickening that the tracking of me is happening.

Just reupping this “you are tracking our IP addresses” post from yesterday and noting that this is the type of thoughtful, fact based analysis that is being posted by Baldoni defenders, so just don’t expect too much here guys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Megan Twohey published something on musk in the NYT today!!

That's a big story!

It is. It’s focused on his drug use. What’s interesting is that despite having multiple sources going back years about his drug use, and it being previously reported in legit outlets like the WSJ, they apparently still gave him/his lawyer data to respond to the allegations before they published.

But Baldoni and the PR people (private figures) got less than 12 hours on a Friday night around the holidays…?

Why? How?

Probably because most of the Baldoni story is sourced from the texts or the CRD and they were confident that the law doesn't require them to litigate and examine those claims. They also interviewed Lively but IIRC did not use any quotes from her. This new story has a lot more quoting from unnamed sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it just the two posters going back and forth about legal issues? How dull.

Do tell us about how Ryan is zesty.

You think he’s straight?

No, but those posts are tedious.

Well, it’s a slippery moral slope. Anyone insane and money and fame hungry enough to enter an arranged marriage with a gay man is also probably game to cook up a sexual harassment hoax and smear campaign for more money, fame, and to improve their image. It would cut to the core that you’re not dealing with a Godly moral loving all-American perfect family, they’re fake fraudulent Godless Hollywood deviants. It could also suggest an open marriage situation where the husband is fully aware of the wife pursuing other men, maybe even, at times, for the purposes of blackmail honeypot schemes they cook up together.

I hate to break this to you but you are the one in wanting this whole open-marriage, gay husband, conniving wife scenario in you mind, which makes you the deviant.

Lively and Reynolds have four kids together and while there are lots of rumors about them both being jerks, there's actually no rumors of infidelity on either side, and nothing to substantiate Reynolds being gay. So it actually seems like whatever else you might think if them, they have a pretty decent marriage. It's fascinating to me how badly you want your insane alternate reality to be true though.

He has a very gay affect, specifically the voice. He also has the snarky gay humor. I can't picture him being passionate with a woman. The fact that they have four kids means very little for his sexuality when you consider that gay people marry straight people all the time for the purpose of having children. I personally know two people who are the offspring of a gay dad and a straight mom.

[Anonymous]

The NYT and WSJ reporting on Musk's drug use is different.

WSJ has previously reported on Musk's known use of drugs such as ketamine and LSD, and specifically how the boards of Tesla and his other companies have responded to it. Musk hasn't exactly hidden his drug use and has talked about some of this stuff publicly. WSJ's angle was primarily on how it impacted his businesses and the unusual nature of a CEO who openly uses both legal and illegal drugs.

The NYT story is focused on Musk's involvement with Trump's 2024 campaign and his use of drugs on the campaign trail, PLUS his family issues which were very prevalent on the campaign because he would often bring his kids with him. But also some of his family scandals broke during the campaign. So the NYT story is not really about Musk's role as CEO but the specific role he played on the campaign and the craziness of him doing drugs and dealing with pretty wild family drama in the midst of a presidential campaign. Especially since Trump himself is sort of famously a teetotaler.

Since the NYT story was reporting on events that unfolded during the campaign and for which they had a variety of inside sources, it makes sense that they would need to take more time offer time to comment because using anonymous sources of private events can be thin ice for reporters. This is different from the Lively/Baldoni reporting where Lively was going on the record and filing a court case.

Also Twohey offered Wayfarer more than 12 hours to comment but then Freedman leaked the CRD complaint and the story to tabloids at like 4am and NYT was forced to publish early instead of waiting until their scheduled time in order to avoid being scooped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still not a peep from Blake on Kevin Costner. I thought she wanted to be the voice for women?

Uh, the news came out today. Where's Baldoni? I thought his whole thing was holding me accountable for their treatment if women?

Justin’s never proclaimed himself to be the voice of victims of SH or SA. But Blake on the other hand just gave a long speech at the time 100 gala saying just that. Now another woman much less powerful than her comes out against an A lister and she’s quiet as a church mouse, just like she was with Harvey and Woody. I guess she stands up for “victims” only when she’s trying to steal a movie.

I’m not sure this is a sincere argument. But in case it is, I don’t think this victim would want the attention of Blake Lively taking her side right now. Do you? If Lively actually did this, wouldn’t you criticize her for performing support to draw attention to herself?

Neutral DP. I think you're probably right that Baldoni fans would criticize her either way, but it's also fair to question why she takes up the mantle of supporting all women and then doesn't comment when the accused is a big Hollywood name. That would be sort of gross. It's a pretty similar situation regarding the lack of IC and unscripted intimate scenes being added, so reasonable to think Lively would support. OTOH I'd hate to see the Baldoni fans flood comment threats with hate for this woman.

DP but I think it's absurd to expect Blake or her legal team to publicly comment on this woman's lawsuit the day the news breaks, and I do think that would be performative and attention seeking if she did it.

The fact patterns are so similar that I think it's highly likely the stunt woman's lawsuit was at least in part inspired by Lively's. The questions of whether it is sexual harassment to push an actress (or stunt woman) to do unscripted nudity or intimacy haven't really been litigated before, and the question of when it is necessary for an intimacy coordinator to be on set and what their job is has also not really been legally explored. Until Lively's lawsuit. So to me there is no way that, at a minimum, the stunt woman's lawyers have not read Lively's complaint and explored the case law and the arguments she is leaning on in her case.

In that way, Lively's lawsuit *is* functioning as a form of support for the stunt woman, whether they ever touch base publicly or privately (and I expect they likely will because they are alleging such similar things). This is actually one of the main arguments in favor of someone like Lively, who is powerful and wealthy and has a lot of industry support, coming forward and calling out this behavior -- it can make it easier for people like this stunt woman, who have none of those resources, to come forward as well. So even if Lively never publicly says she supports this lawsuit, she has shown through her actions that she believes women on movie sets deserve better than what this stunt woman experienced on set. That is actually more meaningful than a public statement, IMO.

People can criticize Blake all they want but what if her lawsuit leads to more actresses on films sets speaking up when they are asked to do nudity that wasn't in the script, when the director or a scene partner pushes a form of intimacy that feels uncomfortable or bad to them without discussing it first or involving an IC? What if Blake's lawsuit leads to the industry adopting stricter industry standards for the filming of nudity and intimacy, and to a better understanding that "intimacy" can involve any scene where an actor's body is put in an intimate or compromised position (such as simulating childbirth or medical procedures)? I think all of that would be a net positive for Hollywood and for women in Hollywood. I think a lot of actresses, regardless of how they feel about Blake personally or how they view this particular case, would be happy to see those changes. And that's not even getting into the the retaliation aspects of her lawsuit, which I think are of particular interest to celebrity women at all levels who know how easy it is to harm their livelihoods and their personal lives by plugging into the online misogyny generator and focusing it on a famous woman.

This is what it means when we say "women helping women." This is why I think her lawsuit is important and fully support her in bringing these allegations and pursuing legal remedies. This could change things for women for the better in a way that hashtags and online info campaigns can't.

These are great point! I agree with you. Specifically, even if Lively doesn’t make some public statement of support right now which might unintentionally encourage Baldoni supporters to attack this victim also, Lively’s suit itself may already have helped in a way by bringing public attention to these nudity and intimacy issues.

I don’t really know if Lively should publicly support this victim and/or whether the victim would even want it. And I look at the terrible online beating that Dorsey is getting right now, and just have a lot of respect for former victims like her and Amber Heard who have come out in support of Lively despite the cost to them online. Nerves of steel, these women.

NP. I don't agree with you and here's why. It's been my belief that the law doesn't concave to benign actions. What I mean by this is that there is a range of what can be included as harrassment. Is it a glance (very benign and perhaps unprovable) or is it constant contact at all hours of the day/night suggesting sexual behaviors and engagements (not benign and a high level of discomfort + provable)? I want to believe from everything I know about the law, that the courts use a reasonableness standard and asks of juries to do so as well. And I tend to believe that juries get it right in a lot of cases -- they tend to pass on the benign and unprovable, but support strong legal action for intentional, abusive and/or egregious behavior. Again, not always, but in many cases.

I think that in applying this rational to the Baldoni case and the new Costner stunt woman case, I think you have two opposite ranges of accused behavior. There is the "he looked at me the wrong way/made me feel uncomfortable and I think it could be SH" Blake behavior versus the "he raped me in a scene" without an IC behavior. Juries will see the difference and imo will only support strong legal action for the behavior that is most egregious to set that behavior as a bar.

In wanting to punish someone harshly for lukewarm/non-existent behavior, you are setting a really bad bar that will be ripe for overturning because it simply is not reasonable. And if there is anything that I know about American law, is that it always finds its way back to the reasonableness standard.

That's the way I see it with court cases, and that's why I assert that Baldoni would win if the case is given to a jury. No reasonable person would argue that the standards that the law has set for SH is being met with Blake's accusations. Nowhere even close.

Plus, if the law were to concede that what Blake is accusing amounts to SH, the bar will be lowered to even lesser actions as constituting SH. E.g., if a guy even has the thought of looking Blake's way without an IC present, it would be considered SH. The courts don't intend that to be the case at all. Hence my views on Baldoni having the stronger case. There is just not a lot of evidence that Blake has shown to support any decent notion of SH.

And yes, I can see how the lawyers for this new case (and probably even more that are waiting to see the outcome of Baldoni) are hoping that Blake's case provides the opening needed for their cases to succeed. At the same time, having two cases at opposite ends of the spectrum on SH/SA is not a good thing for Blake, especially given that hers is the one alleging the weakest action.

If we are playing match the posts, I think this is the same person who thought Lively defenders were tracking her location somehow via her comments, fwiw.

And for to know that, it must mean that I am correct. You are the Lively poster who is tracking us. You’ve made a few comments directed at me after I’ve made a post. No one else but me would know this, so I know that you are reading our IP addresses.

I haven’t been on this site all day, and I’m writing now very differently, and on a legal point, which I rarely ever do.

I get that you are following me (following us all). The question remains “why would a dcum mom track random commenters on a supposedly anonymous website? I can’t think of too many moms who would go to such lengths, unless you are not a mom (!), and unless you are broadcasting who I am to others who may be tracking us.

I will contact Jeff and I will make an action against this.

Everyone else, as I’ve said before, your IP is being tracked.

I’m at least glad that over the past hundred of pages or so, several of you have supported my comments.

But it is sickening that the tracking of me is happening.

Omg this is amazing!!!

I strongly suspected it was you because you posted about “American law” as though you are not American, and the posts accusing people of tracking you said you were in the US.

Please feel free to contact Jeff, who will confirm that there is no way on earth I am tracking you.

But Baldoni supporters — there you go! These are your peeps!!!!

Ugh — typo — I strongly suspected it was you because you posted about “American law” as though you are not American, and the posts accusing people of tracking you said you were NOT in the US.

You can't even type. Just be quiet.

Anyone else notice how on brand it was for a Baldoni defender to tell a woman who had been right all along to just shut up?

Team Baldoni: When you have been wrong about something and a woman shows it to you, tell them to just be quiet!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Megan Twohey published something on musk in the NYT today!!

That's a big story!

It is. It’s focused on his drug use. What’s interesting is that despite having multiple sources going back years about his drug use, and it being previously reported in legit outlets like the WSJ, they apparently still gave him/his lawyer data to respond to the allegations before they published.

But Baldoni and the PR people (private figures) got less than 12 hours on a Friday night around the holidays…?

Why? How?

Probably because most of the Baldoni story is sourced from the texts or the CRD and they were confident that the law doesn't require them to litigate and examine those claims. They also interviewed Lively but IIRC did not use any quotes from her. This new story has a lot more quoting from unnamed sources.

Yes, I know this area of the law fairly well, and I know they’ll expect to rely on fair report as a defense, but they went outside FR imo (claims they deeply investigated, the headline, as ex), and it was just sloppy and lazy journalism, especially from NYT Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist. I still can’t figure it out…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The NYT and WSJ reporting on Musk's drug use is different.

WSJ has previously reported on Musk's known use of drugs such as ketamine and LSD, and specifically how the boards of Tesla and his other companies have responded to it. Musk hasn't exactly hidden his drug use and has talked about some of this stuff publicly. WSJ's angle was primarily on how it impacted his businesses and the unusual nature of a CEO who openly uses both legal and illegal drugs.

The NYT story is focused on Musk's involvement with Trump's 2024 campaign and his use of drugs on the campaign trail, PLUS his family issues which were very prevalent on the campaign because he would often bring his kids with him. But also some of his family scandals broke during the campaign. So the NYT story is not really about Musk's role as CEO but the specific role he played on the campaign and the craziness of him doing drugs and dealing with pretty wild family drama in the midst of a presidential campaign. Especially since Trump himself is sort of famously a teetotaler.

Since the NYT story was reporting on events that unfolded during the campaign and for which they had a variety of inside sources, it makes sense that they would need to take more time offer time to comment because using anonymous sources of private events can be thin ice for reporters. This is different from the Lively/Baldoni reporting where Lively was going on the record and filing a court case.

Also Twohey offered Wayfarer more than 12 hours to comment but then Freedman leaked the CRD complaint and the story to tabloids at like 4am and NYT was forced to publish early instead of waiting until their scheduled time in order to avoid being scooped.

I posted above. That’s a lot of blather but the fact is this was a sloppily reported piece. And as far as ‘rushing’ to beat another competing story in a tabloid.. so?? why?? This is the NYT. She is a Pulitzer winning journalist. She was trying to beat a celebrity rag for a piece on B/C list Hollywood players? This makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The NYT and WSJ reporting on Musk's drug use is different.

WSJ has previously reported on Musk's known use of drugs such as ketamine and LSD, and specifically how the boards of Tesla and his other companies have responded to it. Musk hasn't exactly hidden his drug use and has talked about some of this stuff publicly. WSJ's angle was primarily on how it impacted his businesses and the unusual nature of a CEO who openly uses both legal and illegal drugs.

The NYT story is focused on Musk's involvement with Trump's 2024 campaign and his use of drugs on the campaign trail, PLUS his family issues which were very prevalent on the campaign because he would often bring his kids with him. But also some of his family scandals broke during the campaign. So the NYT story is not really about Musk's role as CEO but the specific role he played on the campaign and the craziness of him doing drugs and dealing with pretty wild family drama in the midst of a presidential campaign. Especially since Trump himself is sort of famously a teetotaler.

Since the NYT story was reporting on events that unfolded during the campaign and for which they had a variety of inside sources, it makes sense that they would need to take more time offer time to comment because using anonymous sources of private events can be thin ice for reporters. This is different from the Lively/Baldoni reporting where Lively was going on the record and filing a court case.

Also Twohey offered Wayfarer more than 12 hours to comment but then Freedman leaked the CRD complaint and the story to tabloids at like 4am and NYT was forced to publish early instead of waiting until their scheduled time in order to avoid being scooped.

Ooh, interesting analysis! It makes sense that they would offer more time here.

This also makes it seem like Baldoni supporter assertions here that Twohey had been put on ice, in shame, by the NYT was just total unfounded and false speculation. Seems like she’s been pretty busy, actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Megan Twohey published something on musk in the NYT today!!

That's a big story!

It is. It’s focused on his drug use. What’s interesting is that despite having multiple sources going back years about his drug use, and it being previously reported in legit outlets like the WSJ, they apparently still gave him/his lawyer data to respond to the allegations before they published.

But Baldoni and the PR people (private figures) got less than 12 hours on a Friday night around the holidays…?

Why? How?

Probably because most of the Baldoni story is sourced from the texts or the CRD and they were confident that the law doesn't require them to litigate and examine those claims. They also interviewed Lively but IIRC did not use any quotes from her. This new story has a lot more quoting from unnamed sources.

Yes, I know this area of the law fairly well, and I know they’ll expect to rely on fair report as a defense, but they went outside FR imo (claims they deeply investigated, the headline, as ex), and it was just sloppy and lazy journalism, especially from NYT Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist. I still can’t figure it out…

Maybe stop trying to make this whole “The NYT is a failing and shoddy newspaper” schtick happen. They are pretty great, especially when compared against the gossip rags like Daily Mail that you post here. This Musk story is expansively reported and important, and they do this kind of thing pretty frequently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYT and WSJ reporting on Musk's drug use is different.

WSJ has previously reported on Musk's known use of drugs such as ketamine and LSD, and specifically how the boards of Tesla and his other companies have responded to it. Musk hasn't exactly hidden his drug use and has talked about some of this stuff publicly. WSJ's angle was primarily on how it impacted his businesses and the unusual nature of a CEO who openly uses both legal and illegal drugs.

The NYT story is focused on Musk's involvement with Trump's 2024 campaign and his use of drugs on the campaign trail, PLUS his family issues which were very prevalent on the campaign because he would often bring his kids with him. But also some of his family scandals broke during the campaign. So the NYT story is not really about Musk's role as CEO but the specific role he played on the campaign and the craziness of him doing drugs and dealing with pretty wild family drama in the midst of a presidential campaign. Especially since Trump himself is sort of famously a teetotaler.

Since the NYT story was reporting on events that unfolded during the campaign and for which they had a variety of inside sources, it makes sense that they would need to take more time offer time to comment because using anonymous sources of private events can be thin ice for reporters. This is different from the Lively/Baldoni reporting where Lively was going on the record and filing a court case.

Also Twohey offered Wayfarer more than 12 hours to comment but then Freedman leaked the CRD complaint and the story to tabloids at like 4am and NYT was forced to publish early instead of waiting until their scheduled time in order to avoid being scooped.

Ooh, interesting analysis! It makes sense that they would offer more time here.

This also makes it seem like Baldoni supporter assertions here that Twohey had been put on ice, in shame, by the NYT was just total unfounded and false speculation. Seems like she’s been pretty busy, actually.

Not really. I suspect she’d been reporting this piece out for awhile and was allowed to continue on it. Is she staff or independent?

I think it’s an overall positive sign for her, but I wouldn’t read too much into it. I hope Blake didn’t ruin her career, but it’s a possibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The NYT and WSJ reporting on Musk's drug use is different.

WSJ has previously reported on Musk's known use of drugs such as ketamine and LSD, and specifically how the boards of Tesla and his other companies have responded to it. Musk hasn't exactly hidden his drug use and has talked about some of this stuff publicly. WSJ's angle was primarily on how it impacted his businesses and the unusual nature of a CEO who openly uses both legal and illegal drugs.

The NYT story is focused on Musk's involvement with Trump's 2024 campaign and his use of drugs on the campaign trail, PLUS his family issues which were very prevalent on the campaign because he would often bring his kids with him. But also some of his family scandals broke during the campaign. So the NYT story is not really about Musk's role as CEO but the specific role he played on the campaign and the craziness of him doing drugs and dealing with pretty wild family drama in the midst of a presidential campaign. Especially since Trump himself is sort of famously a teetotaler.

Since the NYT story was reporting on events that unfolded during the campaign and for which they had a variety of inside sources, it makes sense that they would need to take more time offer time to comment because using anonymous sources of private events can be thin ice for reporters. This is different from the Lively/Baldoni reporting where Lively was going on the record and filing a court case.

Also Twohey offered Wayfarer more than 12 hours to comment but then Freedman leaked the CRD complaint and the story to tabloids at like 4am and NYT was forced to publish early instead of waiting until their scheduled time in order to avoid being scooped.

For this story to be impactful, it would need to be published in January, when Musk was actually wielding power as a result of his role on the campaign. Instead, The NY Times waited. So Lame.

Many of the WSJ stories were published during the campaign and one specifically addressed how much his ketamine use had increased. NY Times is not breaking new ground here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Megan Twohey published something on musk in the NYT today!!

That's a big story!

It is. It’s focused on his drug use. What’s interesting is that despite having multiple sources going back years about his drug use, and it being previously reported in legit outlets like the WSJ, they apparently still gave him/his lawyer data to respond to the allegations before they published.

But Baldoni and the PR people (private figures) got less than 12 hours on a Friday night around the holidays…?

Why? How?

Probably because most of the Baldoni story is sourced from the texts or the CRD and they were confident that the law doesn't require them to litigate and examine those claims. They also interviewed Lively but IIRC did not use any quotes from her. This new story has a lot more quoting from unnamed sources.

Yes, I know this area of the law fairly well, and I know they’ll expect to rely on fair report as a defense, but they went outside FR imo (claims they deeply investigated, the headline, as ex), and it was just sloppy and lazy journalism, especially from NYT Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist. I still can’t figure it out…

Maybe stop trying to make this whole “The NYT is a failing and shoddy newspaper” schtick happen. They are pretty great, especially when compared against the gossip rags like Daily Mail that you post here. This Musk story is expansively reported and important, and they do this kind of thing pretty frequently.

I’m PP and I’ve never posted that the NYT is shoddy or failing. Not once. Nor have I posted DM pieces. I think that the NYT is imperfect but one of the best papers there is. That’s why I’m so baffled at this Blake schlock… why??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYT and WSJ reporting on Musk's drug use is different.

WSJ has previously reported on Musk's known use of drugs such as ketamine and LSD, and specifically how the boards of Tesla and his other companies have responded to it. Musk hasn't exactly hidden his drug use and has talked about some of this stuff publicly. WSJ's angle was primarily on how it impacted his businesses and the unusual nature of a CEO who openly uses both legal and illegal drugs.

The NYT story is focused on Musk's involvement with Trump's 2024 campaign and his use of drugs on the campaign trail, PLUS his family issues which were very prevalent on the campaign because he would often bring his kids with him. But also some of his family scandals broke during the campaign. So the NYT story is not really about Musk's role as CEO but the specific role he played on the campaign and the craziness of him doing drugs and dealing with pretty wild family drama in the midst of a presidential campaign. Especially since Trump himself is sort of famously a teetotaler.

Since the NYT story was reporting on events that unfolded during the campaign and for which they had a variety of inside sources, it makes sense that they would need to take more time offer time to comment because using anonymous sources of private events can be thin ice for reporters. This is different from the Lively/Baldoni reporting where Lively was going on the record and filing a court case.

Also Twohey offered Wayfarer more than 12 hours to comment but then Freedman leaked the CRD complaint and the story to tabloids at like 4am and NYT was forced to publish early instead of waiting until their scheduled time in order to avoid being scooped.

For this story to be impactful, it would need to be published in January, when Musk was actually wielding power as a result of his role on the campaign. Instead, The NY Times waited. So Lame.

Many of the WSJ stories were published during the campaign and one specifically addressed how much his ketamine use had increased. NY Times is not breaking new ground here.

DP. That’s a good point. I still think ot was a decent piece, but yeah, the timing is less impactful.

Funny the poster above is claiming the NYT couldn’t give Baldonis side time to respond and had to rush the Blake piece to ensure they broke this oh so important he said/she said sexual harassment on a B movie Hollywood set, but yet they apparently sat on a story of much greater import involving Musk.