Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It kind of feels stupid to argue with the remaining two Baldoni supporters at this point.

Baldoni's Instagram begs to differ.

There are at least 3 of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It kind of feels stupid to argue with the remaining two Baldoni supporters at this point.

Baldoni's Instagram begs to differ.

There are at least 3 of us.

4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is idle gossip but I'm enjoying it anyway:

Last night Taylor Swift was seen out in NYC with Dakota Johnson. They went to Via Carta with their respective brothers.

Dakota was escorted to and from her car for her pap walks (clearly staged) by a bald bodyguard who is in many of the photos of her that wound up in the press.

The bodyguard happens to be the same one who worked for Blake on both the set of IEWU and during her NY press tour for Another Simple Favor.

Maybe he just freelances in NY and it's a total coincidence.

Or maybe not.

That’s juicy. Everyone has abandoned the liar Blake. I wouldn’t want to work for someone that slings false SH accusations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It kind of feels stupid to argue with the remaining two Baldoni supporters at this point.

Baldoni's Instagram begs to differ.

There are at least 3 of us.

4

5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP than anyone who has posted in the last few days. I’m totally confused at the argument posters are making that the NYT gave Baldoni appropriate time to truly respond.

It was a Friday night during the holidays. The story ran the next day. It would be one thing if Blake had said he raped or assaulted me and he vehemently denied that. But her allegations required a lot of nuance and time to respond.

The article implied there was no IC. Later we learned there was one, Blake didn’t meet with her, causing Baldoni to relay notes to Blake which later she weaponized against him. That context took some explaining and if he had ONLY responded to that he would have looked nuts. Because she went into say she was shown porn, when later we learned she wasn’t shown anything resembling porn. And on and on. She was uncomfortable in situations and we later found out those were situations she created.

She had threatened to walk off the film and refused to sign her contract or update her nudity rider. She had two female ADs fired. Her husband berated and harassed Baldoni. She violated several guilds through her actions. I could go on, but we all know this. It actually took some time for Justin to pull his evidence together and get it out, the texts, the emails, later the video footage hence the website of 250 pages that we got 10 days later or whatever.

But you all know this. And now Megan twoey knows this too, which is why she looks stupid, and why nobody has heard from her since this happened.

She violated several guilds?? What does that mean? The rest of your post sounds like it was written by a human...

She violated the writers guild, the director’s guild, and the producers guild, but I think the producers guild is called something else.

For the writers guild, first off she had Ryan write the rooftop scene and he was in no way affiliated with the movie, nor did she tell the screenwriter that in advance and the screenwriter only found out on the red carpet. Further, given the timing, it is speculated that Ryan wrote that scene during the writers strike.

She violated directors guild by not allowing Justin to have his 10 days in the editing bay uninterrupted.

There’s a petition because she violated the PGA guidelines. There are very specific requirements to earn these credentials, and it’s likely that Blake didn’t earn them. For example, there’s one set of requirements that you have to be involved in the fundraising for the movie, it’s development, hiring, etc. and Blake did not come on until right before the movie started shooting so she didn’t get any of those requirements. And given Wayfair has a written letter that the credentials were recommended under duress petitioners were saying that she violated the PGA.

Hope that helps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

So you don't think she abided by their general standards and practices?

I think Twohey is an unethical fame whoring hack who seeks to rub shoulders with Hollywood. She is not some humble low key investigative reporter who shuns the spotlight. And if you don’t think these two plantation dunces are above offering or implying there was something in this for her I have a bridge to sell you. Hopefully she’s deposed and her communication records are preserved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Ironic. A claim that you have admitted when you've seen "good moves for BL" followed by a denial of the premise. You go on to note as the only example a move not made by BL and then you make the case that it wasn't a good move at all. Why pretend you have "admitted when you've seen good moves for BL" when you go on to so clearly demonstrate that you are incapable of that?

Huh? I said the truth. It seemed ok and sympathetic at first but ya’ll ruined it on here af least by going too hard on it. Your strategy is crummy which many people have noted repeatedly.

Whatever their paying you, they need to pivot

[Anonymous]

^ they are

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP than anyone who has posted in the last few days. I’m totally confused at the argument posters are making that the NYT gave Baldoni appropriate time to truly respond.

It was a Friday night during the holidays. The story ran the next day. It would be one thing if Blake had said he raped or assaulted me and he vehemently denied that. But her allegations required a lot of nuance and time to respond.

The article implied there was no IC. Later we learned there was one, Blake didn’t meet with her, causing Baldoni to relay notes to Blake which later she weaponized against him. That context took some explaining and if he had ONLY responded to that he would have looked nuts. Because she went into say she was shown porn, when later we learned she wasn’t shown anything resembling porn. And on and on. She was uncomfortable in situations and we later found out those were situations she created.

She had threatened to walk off the film and refused to sign her contract or update her nudity rider. She had two female ADs fired. Her husband berated and harassed Baldoni. She violated several guilds through her actions. I could go on, but we all know this. It actually took some time for Justin to pull his evidence together and get it out, the texts, the emails, later the video footage hence the website of 250 pages that we got 10 days later or whatever.

But you all know this. And now Megan twoey knows this too, which is why she looks stupid, and why nobody has heard from her since this happened.

PPs very clearly point is that Baldoni's people did respond and did not ask for more time. Had they asked for more time, we might be in a very different position. Repeatedly asserting that Baldoni did not have sufficient time when he NEVER SAID THAT HIMSELF is odd.

You’re silly as always.

We don’t really know how the conversations went but clearly the wayfarer parties indicated to the NYT that the story was not the full one. That right there would be a red flag to slow down for most journalists. For some crazy reason, it wasn’t, even though the story going out in 12+ hours after a Friday night during a holiday period was going to ruin multiple people’s lives. People are getting death threats etc.

You can’t be serious when you claim that somehow this was normal or Baldoni should have said different words when objecting (or freedman) and that’s why it was published.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It kind of feels stupid to argue with the remaining two Baldoni supporters at this point.

Baldoni's Instagram begs to differ.

There are at least 3 of us.

4

5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It kind of feels stupid to argue with the remaining two Baldoni supporters at this point.

Baldoni's Instagram begs to differ.

There are at least 3 of us.

4

5

Oops. 6 !

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It kind of feels stupid to argue with the remaining two Baldoni supporters at this point.

Baldoni's Instagram begs to differ.

There are at least 3 of us.

4

5

Oops. 6 !

7!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It kind of feels stupid to argue with the remaining two Baldoni supporters at this point.

Baldoni's Instagram begs to differ.

There are at least 3 of us.

4

5

Oops. 6 !

7!

Y'all there is no way there is 7 people total on this thread, much less on one side. You're just sockpuppeting which is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It kind of feels stupid to argue with the remaining two Baldoni supporters at this point.

Baldoni's Instagram begs to differ.

There are at least 3 of us.

4

5

Oops. 6 !

7!

Y'all there is no way there is 7 people total on this thread, much less on one side. You're just sockpuppeting which is ridiculous.

DP 8

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

So you don't think she abided by their general standards and practices?

I think Twohey is an unethical fame whoring hack who seeks to rub shoulders with Hollywood. She is not some humble low key investigative reporter who shuns the spotlight. And if you don’t think these two plantation dunces are above offering or implying there was something in this for her I have a bridge to sell you. Hopefully she’s deposed and her communication records are preserved.

What makes you say that?

Not sure I totally agree about Twohey- I just don’t know that much about her- but what about the rest of the NYT staff?? The editors and legal and fact check that she must have worked with.

I do think she’ll end up being deposed. I think once Liman digs into the issues, he won’t fully dismiss the complaint