Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the NYT piece on Lively, Twohey sent out requests for comments the evening before publication with plans to publish the following afternoon. I can't remember if it was 24 hours notice or more like 18.

Abel responded with a statement from Freedman, saying it covered all the Wayfarer defendants.

Twohey wrote back to clarify "including Jed Wallace." Abel confirmed yes, including Jed Wallace.

Then in the early morning the next day, Freedman leaked the CRD and the story itself to TMZ and a host of other tabloids, with a *different* statement than the one he'd provided the NYT, and the internet went wild on it.

At no point did Freedman or any of the Wayfarer parties request more time to respond to the NYT.

So yes, the NYT had no choice but to publish early before the news cycle completed. Freedman manufactured that situation by leaking and providing a comment to the tabloids. And then he turned around and argued the NYT offered Wayfarer inadequate time to respond.

Sorry, but no. It's a transparent game. Wayfarer not only had enough time to review the allegations (which they already knew about and were expecting) and provide a comment, but also had enough time for Freedman to orchestrate an attempted PR end run around the NYT piece before it published.

I am very over people complaining the NYT didn't give Wayfarer enough time to respond. Yes they did.

I should also note that the speed with which Freedman responded on behalf of all Wayfarer parties proves that they were already lawyered up and ready for this. It was not even a little surprising. I laugh when I see people marveling at "how fast" Freedman/Wayfarer put together their timeline for their countersuit. They were working on it for months! They knew in August that Leslie Sloane had seen at least one or two of the texts from Abel's phone, they knew they were cooked. Nathan recommended Baldoni speak to Freedman even before then (during the conflict over the supposed PR "truce" that both Jones and Sloane were accused of breaking).

Look, a Pulitzer winning journalist should always take time to hear from the other side in a meaningful way. Especially when so much of this is from one source who it wouldn’t take long to discover had an axe to grind with Baldoni over other issues… just posting a blanket denial was not even close to best practices. This was a huge mistake, however you want to try to spin it.

[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.

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.

What the hell does Elon Musk have to do with Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree it would have been more impactful in January. But again, the focus is on his drug use and family issues on the campaign trail, which means they were almost entirely reliant on anonymous sources from within the campaign. It takes time to develop such sources and it's very likely that many of the people who came forward were not willing to do so in January, when there was widespread optimism within Trumpworld about the new administration. It was only after Trump took office and Musk started doing what he was doing that divisions started to spring up and more people were willing to come forward and talk about it. That's just the reality.

I would be this piece has origins from last October when Musk and others appeared to be on drugs during that creepy testosterone-fueled Trumpfest at MSG. But you can look at that footage and think "oh wow these people are all on drugs," but until you have at least one reliable source, and more likely two anonymous sources corroborating, you can't print. It is what it is.

Again, the Lively story was different because she was on the record and was filing a court case, plus they had the texts from Abel's phone. Extremely different reporting. If the NYT had verified texts from Musk talking about drug use and his family, they probably would have published earlier AND would not have given him as much time to respond.

Would they have published if they had only one source on Musk’s drug use (indicating he’d smoked pot a few times) and one surreptitiously obtained text with a
‘Oh yeah, I’m on all sorts of drugs!!’ (Upside down smiley face)

Because that’s more the analogy here

They had pages and pages of texts involving Baldoni for the Lively piece. Sure you can argue that one of those texts was meant as sarcasm that was not understood because of the omitted emoji. But that text was between Abel and Nathan, and there are tons of other texts that don't have omitted emojis. They also had copies of the crisis management plans proposed by TAG, texts from Baldoni suggesting ways to attack Lively (asking them to do something like the "mean girl" attacks on Hailey Bieber) or complaining that the social media activity looks like bots. There's a text from Nathan that mentions a phone conversation between Jamey Heath and Jed Wallace. And these are all primary source documents, created by Baldoni, Able, and Nathan.

So no, that's not a good analogy here.

If they were relying on the texts, due diligence would involve interviewing the people who wrote the texts to get the context. Twohey didn’t even attempt to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree it would have been more impactful in January. But again, the focus is on his drug use and family issues on the campaign trail, which means they were almost entirely reliant on anonymous sources from within the campaign. It takes time to develop such sources and it's very likely that many of the people who came forward were not willing to do so in January, when there was widespread optimism within Trumpworld about the new administration. It was only after Trump took office and Musk started doing what he was doing that divisions started to spring up and more people were willing to come forward and talk about it. That's just the reality.

I would be this piece has origins from last October when Musk and others appeared to be on drugs during that creepy testosterone-fueled Trumpfest at MSG. But you can look at that footage and think "oh wow these people are all on drugs," but until you have at least one reliable source, and more likely two anonymous sources corroborating, you can't print. It is what it is.

Again, the Lively story was different because she was on the record and was filing a court case, plus they had the texts from Abel's phone. Extremely different reporting. If the NYT had verified texts from Musk talking about drug use and his family, they probably would have published earlier AND would not have given him as much time to respond.

Would they have published if they had only one source on Musk’s drug use (indicating he’d smoked pot a few times) and one surreptitiously obtained text with a
‘Oh yeah, I’m on all sorts of drugs!!’ (Upside down smiley face)

Because that’s more the analogy here

They had pages and pages of texts involving Baldoni for the Lively piece. Sure you can argue that one of those texts was meant as sarcasm that was not understood because of the omitted emoji. But that text was between Abel and Nathan, and there are tons of other texts that don't have omitted emojis. They also had copies of the crisis management plans proposed by TAG, texts from Baldoni suggesting ways to attack Lively (asking them to do something like the "mean girl" attacks on Hailey Bieber) or complaining that the social media activity looks like bots. There's a text from Nathan that mentions a phone conversation between Jamey Heath and Jed Wallace. And these are all primary source documents, created by Baldoni, Able, and Nathan.

So no, that's not a good analogy here.

Having a social media plan does not make someone a sexual harasser. And it doesn’t mean they were trying to ‘smear’ her for speaking out about SH. There was incredibly important context that was left out of the piece that a young journalist -never mind a Pulitzer winner- should have seen or tried to find. She/NYT didn’t. It is baffling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

What the hell does Elon Musk have to do with Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds?

I"m trying to figure that out and why this entire 700+ pg. thread is all about. I should go back to work where things are more logical and nobody's a lawyer or pretending to be one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

What the hell does Elon Musk have to do with Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds?

The NYT journalist co wrote a piece on musk

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

What the hell does Elon Musk have to do with Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds?

I"m trying to figure that out and why this entire 700+ pg. thread is all about. I should go back to work where things are more logical and nobody's a lawyer or pretending to be one.

A new hat today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree it would have been more impactful in January. But again, the focus is on his drug use and family issues on the campaign trail, which means they were almost entirely reliant on anonymous sources from within the campaign. It takes time to develop such sources and it's very likely that many of the people who came forward were not willing to do so in January, when there was widespread optimism within Trumpworld about the new administration. It was only after Trump took office and Musk started doing what he was doing that divisions started to spring up and more people were willing to come forward and talk about it. That's just the reality.

I would be this piece has origins from last October when Musk and others appeared to be on drugs during that creepy testosterone-fueled Trumpfest at MSG. But you can look at that footage and think "oh wow these people are all on drugs," but until you have at least one reliable source, and more likely two anonymous sources corroborating, you can't print. It is what it is.

Again, the Lively story was different because she was on the record and was filing a court case, plus they had the texts from Abel's phone. Extremely different reporting. If the NYT had verified texts from Musk talking about drug use and his family, they probably would have published earlier AND would not have given him as much time to respond.

Would they have published if they had only one source on Musk’s drug use (indicating he’d smoked pot a few times) and one surreptitiously obtained text with a
‘Oh yeah, I’m on all sorts of drugs!!’ (Upside down smiley face)

Because that’s more the analogy here

They had pages and pages of texts involving Baldoni for the Lively piece. Sure you can argue that one of those texts was meant as sarcasm that was not understood because of the omitted emoji. But that text was between Abel and Nathan, and there are tons of other texts that don't have omitted emojis. They also had copies of the crisis management plans proposed by TAG, texts from Baldoni suggesting ways to attack Lively (asking them to do something like the "mean girl" attacks on Hailey Bieber) or complaining that the social media activity looks like bots. There's a text from Nathan that mentions a phone conversation between Jamey Heath and Jed Wallace. And these are all primary source documents, created by Baldoni, Able, and Nathan.

So no, that's not a good analogy here.

If they were relying on the texts, due diligence would involve interviewing the people who wrote the texts to get the context. Twohey didn’t even attempt to do that.

DP. exactly. It is shocking that it didn’t happen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the NYT piece on Lively, Twohey sent out requests for comments the evening before publication with plans to publish the following afternoon. I can't remember if it was 24 hours notice or more like 18.

Abel responded with a statement from Freedman, saying it covered all the Wayfarer defendants.

Twohey wrote back to clarify "including Jed Wallace." Abel confirmed yes, including Jed Wallace.

Then in the early morning the next day, Freedman leaked the CRD and the story itself to TMZ and a host of other tabloids, with a *different* statement than the one he'd provided the NYT, and the internet went wild on it.

At no point did Freedman or any of the Wayfarer parties request more time to respond to the NYT.

So yes, the NYT had no choice but to publish early before the news cycle completed. Freedman manufactured that situation by leaking and providing a comment to the tabloids. And then he turned around and argued the NYT offered Wayfarer inadequate time to respond.

Sorry, but no. It's a transparent game. Wayfarer not only had enough time to review the allegations (which they already knew about and were expecting) and provide a comment, but also had enough time for Freedman to orchestrate an attempted PR end run around the NYT piece before it published.

I am very over people complaining the NYT didn't give Wayfarer enough time to respond. Yes they did.

I should also note that the speed with which Freedman responded on behalf of all Wayfarer parties proves that they were already lawyered up and ready for this. It was not even a little surprising. I laugh when I see people marveling at "how fast" Freedman/Wayfarer put together their timeline for their countersuit. They were working on it for months! They knew in August that Leslie Sloane had seen at least one or two of the texts from Abel's phone, they knew they were cooked. Nathan recommended Baldoni speak to Freedman even before then (during the conflict over the supposed PR "truce" that both Jones and Sloane were accused of breaking).

Look, a Pulitzer winning journalist should always take time to hear from the other side in a meaningful way. Especially when so much of this is from one source who it wouldn’t take long to discover had an axe to grind with Baldoni over other issues… just posting a blanket denial was not even close to best practices. This was a huge mistake, however you want to try to spin it.

This is unfortunately typical of reporters now. They rush with what they have and include a throwaway line about how the called the subject once and did nor get a response. Journalists are so afraid of being scooped that they will report anything and then just claim the subject never called them back.. Total garbage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the NYT piece on Lively, Twohey sent out requests for comments the evening before publication with plans to publish the following afternoon. I can't remember if it was 24 hours notice or more like 18.

Abel responded with a statement from Freedman, saying it covered all the Wayfarer defendants.

Twohey wrote back to clarify "including Jed Wallace." Abel confirmed yes, including Jed Wallace.

Then in the early morning the next day, Freedman leaked the CRD and the story itself to TMZ and a host of other tabloids, with a *different* statement than the one he'd provided the NYT, and the internet went wild on it.

At no point did Freedman or any of the Wayfarer parties request more time to respond to the NYT.

So yes, the NYT had no choice but to publish early before the news cycle completed. Freedman manufactured that situation by leaking and providing a comment to the tabloids. And then he turned around and argued the NYT offered Wayfarer inadequate time to respond.

Sorry, but no. It's a transparent game. Wayfarer not only had enough time to review the allegations (which they already knew about and were expecting) and provide a comment, but also had enough time for Freedman to orchestrate an attempted PR end run around the NYT piece before it published.

I am very over people complaining the NYT didn't give Wayfarer enough time to respond. Yes they did.

That’s all fairly inaccurate but to address two points, they gave the Wayfarer side approx 12 hours on a Friday night to respond, and then published earlier. That is not adequate or standard time for a long form piece that would be so devastating to multiple people, including private figures, and so largely based on one side’s view of a situation. And two, they did not need to rush the piece. That was a colossal mistake if that’s what they did. This wasn’t a big enough piece for the NYT to rush.

No, you are incorrect.

Here are Twohey's communications with Jen Abel: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.107.7.pdf

Twohey emailed Abel and other Wayfarer defendants at 6:46pm Eastern on December 20th. Her email did not include an expected time of publication, just a request for comment.

Abel replied at 8:16pm (there is a time change between Abel and Twohey so this shows up as 11:16pm on Abel's message). Abel's message provides a statement from Bryan Freedman for "Baldoni, Wayfarere, and all its representatives.

At 8:52pm, Twohey responds asking for clarification on who the statement applies to, specifically asking if it apples to Jen Abel and Melissa Nathan (Twhohey cc's both Freedman and Nathan on this message).

At 8:54pm, Abel replies that yes, it applies to all of those people plus Jed Wallace.

The next day, December 21st, at 4:54am (less than 10 hours after Twohey requested comment from the Wayfarer parties), TMZ published this article: https://www.tmz.com/2024/12/21/blake-lively-sues-justin-baldoni-sexual-harassment-retaliation-on-it-ends-with-us-set/

The article contained several statements from Bryan Freedman that are *different* from the statement Freedman provided the NYT. Thus Freedman communicated with TMZ about the story prior to publication. The original TMZ story had no comment from Lively's team (it would be updated much later in the day with a brief statement from Lively).

The TMZ article was then picked up by a variety of tabloids across the internet. All of these articles cite back to the TMZ article.

The NYT published their article at 10:11am on December 21st, 15+ hours after the request for comment was sent out, 12+ hours after Abel provided comment, and 5+ hours after the TMZ article was published with Freedman's alternative comments.

Explain to me, again, how Wayfarer was blindsided and didn't have enough time to respond.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the NYT piece on Lively, Twohey sent out requests for comments the evening before publication with plans to publish the following afternoon. I can't remember if it was 24 hours notice or more like 18.

Abel responded with a statement from Freedman, saying it covered all the Wayfarer defendants.

Twohey wrote back to clarify "including Jed Wallace." Abel confirmed yes, including Jed Wallace.

Then in the early morning the next day, Freedman leaked the CRD and the story itself to TMZ and a host of other tabloids, with a *different* statement than the one he'd provided the NYT, and the internet went wild on it.

At no point did Freedman or any of the Wayfarer parties request more time to respond to the NYT.

So yes, the NYT had no choice but to publish early before the news cycle completed. Freedman manufactured that situation by leaking and providing a comment to the tabloids. And then he turned around and argued the NYT offered Wayfarer inadequate time to respond.

Sorry, but no. It's a transparent game. Wayfarer not only had enough time to review the allegations (which they already knew about and were expecting) and provide a comment, but also had enough time for Freedman to orchestrate an attempted PR end run around the NYT piece before it published.

I am very over people complaining the NYT didn't give Wayfarer enough time to respond. Yes they did.

That’s all fairly inaccurate but to address two points, they gave the Wayfarer side approx 12 hours on a Friday night to respond, and then published earlier. That is not adequate or standard time for a long form piece that would be so devastating to multiple people, including private figures, and so largely based on one side’s view of a situation. And two, they did not need to rush the piece. That was a colossal mistake if that’s what they did. This wasn’t a big enough piece for the NYT to rush.

No, you are incorrect.

Here are Twohey's communications with Jen Abel: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.107.7.pdf

Twohey emailed Abel and other Wayfarer defendants at 6:46pm Eastern on December 20th. Her email did not include an expected time of publication, just a request for comment.

Abel replied at 8:16pm (there is a time change between Abel and Twohey so this shows up as 11:16pm on Abel's message). Abel's message provides a statement from Bryan Freedman for "Baldoni, Wayfarere, and all its representatives.

At 8:52pm, Twohey responds asking for clarification on who the statement applies to, specifically asking if it apples to Jen Abel and Melissa Nathan (Twhohey cc's both Freedman and Nathan on this message).

At 8:54pm, Abel replies that yes, it applies to all of those people plus Jed Wallace.

The next day, December 21st, at 4:54am (less than 10 hours after Twohey requested comment from the Wayfarer parties), TMZ published this article: https://www.tmz.com/2024/12/21/blake-lively-sues-justin-baldoni-sexual-harassment-retaliation-on-it-ends-with-us-set/

The article contained several statements from Bryan Freedman that are *different* from the statement Freedman provided the NYT. Thus Freedman communicated with TMZ about the story prior to publication. The original TMZ story had no comment from Lively's team (it would be updated much later in the day with a brief statement from Lively).

The TMZ article was then picked up by a variety of tabloids across the internet. All of these articles cite back to the TMZ article.

The NYT published their article at 10:11am on December 21st, 15+ hours after the request for comment was sent out, 12+ hours after Abel provided comment, and 5+ hours after the TMZ article was published with Freedman's alternative comments.

Explain to me, again, how Wayfarer was blindsided and didn't have enough time to respond.

🔥 🔥 🔥 thank you for this excellent timeline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree it would have been more impactful in January. But again, the focus is on his drug use and family issues on the campaign trail, which means they were almost entirely reliant on anonymous sources from within the campaign. It takes time to develop such sources and it's very likely that many of the people who came forward were not willing to do so in January, when there was widespread optimism within Trumpworld about the new administration. It was only after Trump took office and Musk started doing what he was doing that divisions started to spring up and more people were willing to come forward and talk about it. That's just the reality.

I would be this piece has origins from last October when Musk and others appeared to be on drugs during that creepy testosterone-fueled Trumpfest at MSG. But you can look at that footage and think "oh wow these people are all on drugs," but until you have at least one reliable source, and more likely two anonymous sources corroborating, you can't print. It is what it is.

Again, the Lively story was different because she was on the record and was filing a court case, plus they had the texts from Abel's phone. Extremely different reporting. If the NYT had verified texts from Musk talking about drug use and his family, they probably would have published earlier AND would not have given him as much time to respond.

Would they have published if they had only one source on Musk’s drug use (indicating he’d smoked pot a few times) and one surreptitiously obtained text with a
‘Oh yeah, I’m on all sorts of drugs!!’ (Upside down smiley face)

Because that’s more the analogy here

They had pages and pages of texts involving Baldoni for the Lively piece. Sure you can argue that one of those texts was meant as sarcasm that was not understood because of the omitted emoji. But that text was between Abel and Nathan, and there are tons of other texts that don't have omitted emojis. They also had copies of the crisis management plans proposed by TAG, texts from Baldoni suggesting ways to attack Lively (asking them to do something like the "mean girl" attacks on Hailey Bieber) or complaining that the social media activity looks like bots. There's a text from Nathan that mentions a phone conversation between Jamey Heath and Jed Wallace. And these are all primary source documents, created by Baldoni, Able, and Nathan.

So no, that's not a good analogy here.

Having a social media plan does not make someone a sexual harasser. And it doesn’t mean they were trying to ‘smear’ her for speaking out about SH. There was incredibly important context that was left out of the piece that a young journalist -never mind a Pulitzer winner- should have seen or tried to find. She/NYT didn’t. It is baffling.

She reached out to all the defendants, outlined Lively's accusations, and asked for their side of the story.

They chose to issue a blanket denial via Freedman.

Freedman then leaked the whole thing to TMZ and started issuing other statements on the matter, including allegations against Lively that he did NOT include in his statement to the NYT.

There was no effort made by the Wayfarer parties or Freedman to clarify or speak to Twohey to provide their side of the story. Instead, they chose to use the tabloid media to push out their own narrative. That is their prerogative. But if they aren't interested in working with Twohey, and they are already speaking publicly on the matter to other news outlets, she has to just publish what she has. If she sits around waiting for them to come and speak to her, and they never do, her reporting is lost and it's all for nothing.

Baldoni was given a chance to share his side of the story with the NYT. He could have come back and said "look this is out of context and you aren't getting the whole story -- let me give you an interview and let's clarify this." He didn't. There's no indication that the NYT was rushing to publish or that they would have refused an interview with Baldoni or even Freedman -- they didn't have an expected time of publication when they reached out to these parties. But Baldoni chose to stonewall the NYT while Freedman worked with tabloids, so the NYT published what they had.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree it would have been more impactful in January. But again, the focus is on his drug use and family issues on the campaign trail, which means they were almost entirely reliant on anonymous sources from within the campaign. It takes time to develop such sources and it's very likely that many of the people who came forward were not willing to do so in January, when there was widespread optimism within Trumpworld about the new administration. It was only after Trump took office and Musk started doing what he was doing that divisions started to spring up and more people were willing to come forward and talk about it. That's just the reality.

I would be this piece has origins from last October when Musk and others appeared to be on drugs during that creepy testosterone-fueled Trumpfest at MSG. But you can look at that footage and think "oh wow these people are all on drugs," but until you have at least one reliable source, and more likely two anonymous sources corroborating, you can't print. It is what it is.

Again, the Lively story was different because she was on the record and was filing a court case, plus they had the texts from Abel's phone. Extremely different reporting. If the NYT had verified texts from Musk talking about drug use and his family, they probably would have published earlier AND would not have given him as much time to respond.

Would they have published if they had only one source on Musk’s drug use (indicating he’d smoked pot a few times) and one surreptitiously obtained text with a
‘Oh yeah, I’m on all sorts of drugs!!’ (Upside down smiley face)

Because that’s more the analogy here

They had pages and pages of texts involving Baldoni for the Lively piece. Sure you can argue that one of those texts was meant as sarcasm that was not understood because of the omitted emoji. But that text was between Abel and Nathan, and there are tons of other texts that don't have omitted emojis. They also had copies of the crisis management plans proposed by TAG, texts from Baldoni suggesting ways to attack Lively (asking them to do something like the "mean girl" attacks on Hailey Bieber) or complaining that the social media activity looks like bots. There's a text from Nathan that mentions a phone conversation between Jamey Heath and Jed Wallace. And these are all primary source documents, created by Baldoni, Able, and Nathan.

So no, that's not a good analogy here.

Having a social media plan does not make someone a sexual harasser. And it doesn’t mean they were trying to ‘smear’ her for speaking out about SH. There was incredibly important context that was left out of the piece that a young journalist -never mind a Pulitzer winner- should have seen or tried to find. She/NYT didn’t. It is baffling.

She reached out to all the defendants, outlined Lively's accusations, and asked for their side of the story.

They chose to issue a blanket denial via Freedman.

Freedman then leaked the whole thing to TMZ and started issuing other statements on the matter, including allegations against Lively that he did NOT include in his statement to the NYT.

There was no effort made by the Wayfarer parties or Freedman to clarify or speak to Twohey to provide their side of the story. Instead, they chose to use the tabloid media to push out their own narrative. That is their prerogative. But if they aren't interested in working with Twohey, and they are already speaking publicly on the matter to other news outlets, she has to just publish what she has. If she sits around waiting for them to come and speak to her, and they never do, her reporting is lost and it's all for nothing.

Baldoni was given a chance to share his side of the story with the NYT. He could have come back and said "look this is out of context and you aren't getting the whole story -- let me give you an interview and let's clarify this." He didn't. There's no indication that the NYT was rushing to publish or that they would have refused an interview with Baldoni or even Freedman -- they didn't have an expected time of publication when they reached out to these parties. But Baldoni chose to stonewall the NYT while Freedman worked with tabloids, so the NYT published what they had.

Right! Freedman was absolutely not attempting to talk with them or discuss the matter beforehand in good faith. He was basically selling their side of it to tabloids to try to scoop the NYT’s story and lessen the impact. He didn’t ask NYT to hold for more info. He had been preparing for this literally for months.

Thank you for laying this out so clearly. Baldoni supporters will still deny it, because they do not accept reality or admit bad calls even after they have been proven wrong. That is their main defining feature afaict.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

What the hell does Elon Musk have to do with Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds?

Meghan Twohey is a NYT reporter who originally published the story about Lively suing Reynolds’s for harassment and retaliation in December. baldini/Wayfarer later sued NYT for defamation.

Baldoni supporters have been speculating that NYT has really been regretting its decision to publish the Luvely story, and have asserted that Twohey has been put “on ice” by the NYT and not allowed to report on anything important until she earns back trust or the lawsuit is over or something.

But no, here she is reporting for NYT on Elon Musk and drugs etc. Could be a difficult story to defend given Musk’s deep pockets, don’t looks like NYT’s trust in her is solid, but ymmv.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the NYT piece on Lively, Twohey sent out requests for comments the evening before publication with plans to publish the following afternoon. I can't remember if it was 24 hours notice or more like 18.

Abel responded with a statement from Freedman, saying it covered all the Wayfarer defendants.

Twohey wrote back to clarify "including Jed Wallace." Abel confirmed yes, including Jed Wallace.

Then in the early morning the next day, Freedman leaked the CRD and the story itself to TMZ and a host of other tabloids, with a *different* statement than the one he'd provided the NYT, and the internet went wild on it.

At no point did Freedman or any of the Wayfarer parties request more time to respond to the NYT.

So yes, the NYT had no choice but to publish early before the news cycle completed. Freedman manufactured that situation by leaking and providing a comment to the tabloids. And then he turned around and argued the NYT offered Wayfarer inadequate time to respond.

Sorry, but no. It's a transparent game. Wayfarer not only had enough time to review the allegations (which they already knew about and were expecting) and provide a comment, but also had enough time for Freedman to orchestrate an attempted PR end run around the NYT piece before it published.

I am very over people complaining the NYT didn't give Wayfarer enough time to respond. Yes they did.

That’s all fairly inaccurate but to address two points, they gave the Wayfarer side approx 12 hours on a Friday night to respond, and then published earlier. That is not adequate or standard time for a long form piece that would be so devastating to multiple people, including private figures, and so largely based on one side’s view of a situation. And two, they did not need to rush the piece. That was a colossal mistake if that’s what they did. This wasn’t a big enough piece for the NYT to rush.

No, you are incorrect.

Here are Twohey's communications with Jen Abel: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.107.7.pdf

Twohey emailed Abel and other Wayfarer defendants at 6:46pm Eastern on December 20th. Her email did not include an expected time of publication, just a request for comment.

Abel replied at 8:16pm (there is a time change between Abel and Twohey so this shows up as 11:16pm on Abel's message). Abel's message provides a statement from Bryan Freedman for "Baldoni, Wayfarere, and all its representatives.

At 8:52pm, Twohey responds asking for clarification on who the statement applies to, specifically asking if it apples to Jen Abel and Melissa Nathan (Twhohey cc's both Freedman and Nathan on this message).

At 8:54pm, Abel replies that yes, it applies to all of those people plus Jed Wallace.

The next day, December 21st, at 4:54am (less than 10 hours after Twohey requested comment from the Wayfarer parties), TMZ published this article: https://www.tmz.com/2024/12/21/blake-lively-sues-justin-baldoni-sexual-harassment-retaliation-on-it-ends-with-us-set/

The article contained several statements from Bryan Freedman that are *different* from the statement Freedman provided the NYT. Thus Freedman communicated with TMZ about the story prior to publication. The original TMZ story had no comment from Lively's team (it would be updated much later in the day with a brief statement from Lively).

The TMZ article was then picked up by a variety of tabloids across the internet. All of these articles cite back to the TMZ article.

The NYT published their article at 10:11am on December 21st, 15+ hours after the request for comment was sent out, 12+ hours after Abel provided comment, and 5+ hours after the TMZ article was published with Freedman's alternative comments.

Explain to me, again, how Wayfarer was blindsided and didn't have enough time to respond.

lmao. Your own neurotic autopsy inadvertently admits this entire hit piece was already locked and loaded and ready to publish. A months in the making scheme ready for print… P.S. you have until tomorrow morning until we publish and permanently destroy your life.