Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

It kind of feels stupid to argue with the remaining two Baldoni supporters at this point. They don’t seem to accept reality when facts do not fall in their favor, but just dig in their heels or change the subject. Wait, in a minute the rude angry one will write a screed referencing plantation Barbie because she’s big mad now.

None of them ever says, huh, you were right about that one thing. None of them have grown any wiser to Freedman. It’s just deny, deflect, distract all the way down. If you’re losing on one topic, change the subject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It kind of feels stupid to argue with the remaining two Baldoni supporters at this point. They don’t seem to accept reality when facts do not fall in their favor, but just dig in their heels or change the subject. Wait, in a minute the rude angry one will write a screed referencing plantation Barbie because she’s big mad now.

None of them ever says, huh, you were right about that one thing. None of them have grown any wiser to Freedman. It’s just deny, deflect, distract all the way down. If you’re losing on one topic, change the subject.

It's true. The same people who use to say "read the documents!" will, when faced with detailed facts from "the documents" simply repeats their beliefs as facts and ignore anything to the contrary.

I should just let it go and let it play out in the courts and the press. I guess I push back because I saw what happened with Amber Heard and it bugs me how this can play out on the internet. There's just so much eagerness to hate on women and defend men at all costs no matter what.

[Anonymous]

Yesterday Jones also filed her Reply to Able's MTD her counterclaims: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.61.0.pdf

This Reply also encourages Judge Liman to dismiss with prejudice, explaining amendment would just be futile and cause further delay: "Leave to amend “should generally be denied in instances of futility, undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, or undue prejudice.” United States ex rel. Ladas v. Exelis, Inc., 824 F.3d 16, 28 (2d Cir. 2016). Abel has already amended her counterclaims once, after Jonesworks first moved to dismiss them. That amendment did not correct the pleadings to address the motion to dismiss, but made wholesale changes, dropping six claims and adding five new ones that are equally if not more faulty. This Court should not permit Abel to continue wildly amending her pleadings in scattershot fashion with no articulated factual or legal grounding, in search of a theory."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It kind of feels stupid to argue with the remaining two Baldoni supporters at this point. They don’t seem to accept reality when facts do not fall in their favor, but just dig in their heels or change the subject. Wait, in a minute the rude angry one will write a screed referencing plantation Barbie because she’s big mad now.

None of them ever says, huh, you were right about that one thing. None of them have grown any wiser to Freedman. It’s just deny, deflect, distract all the way down. If you’re losing on one topic, change the subject.

It's true. [b]The same people who use to say "read the documents!" will, when faced with detailed facts from "the documents" simply repeats their beliefs as facts and ignore anything to the contrary[u].

I should just let it go and let it play out in the courts and the press. I guess I push back because I saw what happened with Amber Heard and it bugs me how this can play out on the internet. There's just so much eagerness to hate on women and defend men at all costs no matter what.

Right? I was also really affected by what went down at the Amber Heard court proceeding and this feels so similar. (I mean, it involves some of the same PR reps, right? So I guess that makes sense.) Yes especially to the underlined, bolded part above. They don't ever change or adapt their position.

I also just want to thank you for really laying out the facts re the NYT above -- even if the Baldoni people don't like it, I very much appreciate it. It is a clear and logical timeline of events that explains NYT's actions. I hope they will be dismissed with prejudice; I guess we will see!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Exactly exactly exactly. look, this is just not the way long form pieces like this typically play out at places like the NYT. Internal lawyers and editors would almost always be advising the writer for WEEKS to get the other sides perspective, and not just giving them a few hours to respond. They would be sent a list of questions farther in advance, and a good reporter would work with fact checkers and legal to review the responses carefully and dig deeper to see if there was another side. This is standard practice, it just is.

12/15 hours is not enough time. It does not matter if freedman went to TMZ. NYT should not be rushing a story that is not properly investigated based on TMZ!!! Nuts.

You are wrong about how this works. The article was based on the CRD which wasn't filed until they published. Even if they were aware of what *might* be alleged in the legal filing, they can't go to the other side until they know for sure. They also no doubt had to authenticate the texts (they may have worked with Jones on background to do so). You would want to do all that before you went to Baldoni/Wayfarer because you don't want to be asking them about things that didn't wind up in the complaint or, god forbid, find out the texts or other docs were faked. They had to nail it down before getting the other perspective because that's how you build a story.

No editor is going to suggest a reporter go get the "other side" before nailing down the actual allegations first. Otherwise what do you ask? Twohey did this by the book. And there was nothing stopping Freedman from offering a much more extensive statement, getting on the phone with her, etc. Nothing. Twohey would have loved that. It would have made her article better. But it wasn't an option available to her. They started going to other outlets to talk. They just didn't want to talk to Twohey.

Sorry, but that is certainly not how it works. They waited for the CRD to publish because that gave them some legal cover, but they certainly knew what was being alleged and they should have done their due diligence and spoken to the other side. Especially especially bc there were multiple people’s lives they were about to scorch, including private people. There is no other way to say it. This was a F up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It kind of feels stupid to argue with the remaining two Baldoni supporters at this point. They don’t seem to accept reality when facts do not fall in their favor, but just dig in their heels or change the subject. Wait, in a minute the rude angry one will write a screed referencing plantation Barbie because she’s big mad now.

None of them ever says, huh, you were right about that one thing. None of them have grown any wiser to Freedman. It’s just deny, deflect, distract all the way down. If you’re losing on one topic, change the subject.

So because you don't like Freedman Baldoni is guilty of harrassment? What about the fact that Blake Lively lied about the conversation that occurred during the dance scene? Why is she considered trustworthy after that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It kind of feels stupid to argue with the remaining two Baldoni supporters at this point. They don’t seem to accept reality when facts do not fall in their favor, but just dig in their heels or change the subject. Wait, in a minute the rude angry one will write a screed referencing plantation Barbie because she’s big mad now.

None of them ever says, huh, you were right about that one thing. None of them have grown any wiser to Freedman. It’s just deny, deflect, distract all the way down. If you’re losing on one topic, change the subject.

There are more than 2 people who don’t think Blake acted decently. But you’re doing your thing in bogging this chain down with your strategy. Long winded nonsense that twists the facts, making as hominen attacks and overall just trying to change the narrative as much as possible.

I’ve admitted when I see some good moves for BL, although I haven’t seen that many tbh. I thought the amicus on the CA law was not a bad move, although you sort of ruined it by going too hard on the feminist victim issue and the lawyer who filed a brief has shown herself to be little difficult and petty and unprofessional seeming (she posted on LinkedIn and people were asking valid questions which she ran to delete and attack in childish terms). And people are asking pointed questions about her relationship and why she stayed in it for years even though she was married herself, and she only seemed to go forward when she found out she wasn’t the only one. I don’t think that doesn’t make what the professor did correct or not firing worthy fwiw, but it isnt a great look. But I agree the law seems well intentioned, if not potentially flawed and clearly being misused by Blake.

Other than that, I haven’t seen a lot of smart moves from the BL side, mostly just desperation.

And I continue to believe she should try to settle this- and no, not necessarily for 400M although I’m sure you’ll gloss over that as you always do and start ranting about Baldoni (as an individual) not deserving 400m and not ‘proving’ his damages yet!!’

But yes, she should try to come to a confidential settlement and work on some bland blanket statement with Baldoni et al ‘we’ve settled our differences privately, blah blah’ and move on. If she had good advice, this is what she should do. Instead she seems to be doubling down and further risking the opportunity to come to an exit plan.

[Anonymous]

Whether the NYT did the Blake/Baldoni story right, wrong, or something inbetween, I bet they regret it regardless. Blake Lively was not worth all of this headache and fallout.

[Anonymous]

It kind of feels stupid to argue with the remaining two Lively supporters at this point. They don’t seem to accept reality when facts do not fall in their favor, but just dig in their heels or change the subject. Wait, in a minute the rude angry one will write an 800-word screed defending plantation Barbie because she’s big mad now.

None of them ever says, huh, you were right about that one thing. None of them have grown any wiser to Blake. It’s just deny, deflect, distract all the way down. If you’re losing on one topic, change the subject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whether the NYT did the Blake/Baldoni story right, wrong, or something inbetween, I bet they regret it regardless. Blake Lively was not worth all of this headache and fallout.

Of course. And it is just a total pita and very stressful to deal with a litigation, and distracts greatly from their core work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Exactly exactly exactly. look, this is just not the way long form pieces like this typically play out at places like the NYT. Internal lawyers and editors would almost always be advising the writer for WEEKS to get the other sides perspective, and not just giving them a few hours to respond. They would be sent a list of questions farther in advance, and a good reporter would work with fact checkers and legal to review the responses carefully and dig deeper to see if there was another side. This is standard practice, it just is.

12/15 hours is not enough time. It does not matter if freedman went to TMZ. NYT should not be rushing a story that is not properly investigated based on TMZ!!! Nuts.

You are wrong about how this works. The article was based on the CRD which wasn't filed until they published. Even if they were aware of what *might* be alleged in the legal filing, they can't go to the other side until they know for sure. They also no doubt had to authenticate the texts (they may have worked with Jones on background to do so). You would want to do all that before you went to Baldoni/Wayfarer because you don't want to be asking them about things that didn't wind up in the complaint or, god forbid, find out the texts or other docs were faked. They had to nail it down before getting the other perspective because that's how you build a story.

No editor is going to suggest a reporter go get the "other side" before nailing down the actual allegations first. Otherwise what do you ask? Twohey did this by the book. And there was nothing stopping Freedman from offering a much more extensive statement, getting on the phone with her, etc. Nothing. Twohey would have loved that. It would have made her article better. But it wasn't an option available to her. They started going to other outlets to talk. They just didn't want to talk to Twohey.

I don't understand any of this babble, it's well known at this point that Twohey was literally working with Blake for months. There was no shortage of time to contact others.

[Anonymous]

And if Twohey would have "loved that" she would've given Freedman more time. No, she gave a small window, because getting too much input and giving them too much time would have weakened the story she had been working on months for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Exactly exactly exactly. look, this is just not the way long form pieces like this typically play out at places like the NYT. Internal lawyers and editors would almost always be advising the writer for WEEKS to get the other sides perspective, and not just giving them a few hours to respond. They would be sent a list of questions farther in advance, and a good reporter would work with fact checkers and legal to review the responses carefully and dig deeper to see if there was another side. This is standard practice, it just is.

12/15 hours is not enough time. It does not matter if freedman went to TMZ. NYT should not be rushing a story that is not properly investigated based on TMZ!!! Nuts.

You are wrong about how this works. The article was based on the CRD which wasn't filed until they published. Even if they were aware of what *might* be alleged in the legal filing, they can't go to the other side until they know for sure. They also no doubt had to authenticate the texts (they may have worked with Jones on background to do so). You would want to do all that before you went to Baldoni/Wayfarer because you don't want to be asking them about things that didn't wind up in the complaint or, god forbid, find out the texts or other docs were faked. They had to nail it down before getting the other perspective because that's how you build a story.

No editor is going to suggest a reporter go get the "other side" before nailing down the actual allegations first. Otherwise what do you ask? Twohey did this by the book. And there was nothing stopping Freedman from offering a much more extensive statement, getting on the phone with her, etc. Nothing. Twohey would have loved that. It would have made her article better. But it wasn't an option available to her. They started going to other outlets to talk. They just didn't want to talk to Twohey.

I don't understand any of this babble, it's well known at this point that Twohey was literally working with Blake for months. There was no shortage of time to contact others.

DP Totally agree it’s total babble and they just flagrantly say things that make zero sense.

Like this nonsense below from her post - claiming somehow that Twohey wasn’t allowed to go to the other side… huh?

‘You are wrong about how this works. The article was based on the CRD which wasn't filed until they published. Even if they were aware of what *might* be alleged in the legal filing, they can't go to the other side until they know for sure’

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And if Twohey would have "loved that" she would've given Freedman more time. No, she gave a small window, because getting too much input and giving them too much time would have weakened the story she had been working on months for.

Yep. It’s classic confirmation bias/tunnel vision that every publication tries to avoid, but obviously things slips through and people have lapses in judgement. I think she wanted to break the story as a metoo follow up and I think she believed the CRD report would give her enough legal cover to protect them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Exactly exactly exactly. look, this is just not the way long form pieces like this typically play out at places like the NYT. Internal lawyers and editors would almost always be advising the writer for WEEKS to get the other sides perspective, and not just giving them a few hours to respond. They would be sent a list of questions farther in advance, and a good reporter would work with fact checkers and legal to review the responses carefully and dig deeper to see if there was another side. This is standard practice, it just is.

12/15 hours is not enough time. It does not matter if freedman went to TMZ. NYT should not be rushing a story that is not properly investigated based on TMZ!!! Nuts.

You are wrong about how this works. The article was based on the CRD which wasn't filed until they published. Even if they were aware of what *might* be alleged in the legal filing, they can't go to the other side until they know for sure. They also no doubt had to authenticate the texts (they may have worked with Jones on background to do so). You would want to do all that before you went to Baldoni/Wayfarer because you don't want to be asking them about things that didn't wind up in the complaint or, god forbid, find out the texts or other docs were faked. They had to nail it down before getting the other perspective because that's how you build a story.

No editor is going to suggest a reporter go get the "other side" before nailing down the actual allegations first. Otherwise what do you ask? Twohey did this by the book. And there was nothing stopping Freedman from offering a much more extensive statement, getting on the phone with her, etc. Nothing. Twohey would have loved that. It would have made her article better. But it wasn't an option available to her. They started going to other outlets to talk. They just didn't want to talk to Twohey.

Dp. Genuinely curious about this. What ‘book’ did Twohey do this by? Do you mean NYT editorial, fact checking and legal standards? So let’s see them if you know so much. What do they say?