Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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

[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.

It doesn't matter what Twohey personally wanted. I doubt the paper would publish without the usual legal review for a story of this nature. And her story likely passed muster because it was all sourced in the documents, whether you believe what the underlying documents say or not. Every indication is that Twohey and the NYT stand behind the story. The one argument against that proferred by Baldoni supporters was that she hadn't published anything in a while, but now they've printed another article from her about a much more important than Baldoni with much less sourcing, so they apparently find her reliable. Again, you can disagree.

[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!

8

[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.

I’m not sock puppeting. My number was legit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It doesn't matter what Twohey personally wanted. I doubt the paper would publish without the usual legal review for a story of this nature. And her story likely passed muster because it was all sourced in the documents, whether you believe what the underlying documents say or not. Every indication is that Twohey and the NYT stand behind the story. The one argument against that proferred by Baldoni supporters was that she hadn't published anything in a while, but now they've printed another article from her about a much more important than Baldoni with much less sourcing, so they apparently find her reliable. Again, you can disagree.

The stature of a writer can definitely influence internal decisions, even subconsciously.

It wasn’t sourced well, as you claim. It was mostly relying on a fair report privilege (that’s why they waited to publish even though they’d been working on it for awhile) from one woman’s perspective (who had a bias, that they didn’t bother to find) and texts that were arguably taken out of context, but in any event, all from one side. That’s not well sourced. It’s the opposite.

And as far as today’s piece, I’m sure it was in the works for awhile, in fact it was much MUCH better sourced than the Blake article- there were multiple people from different parts of Musks life who gave statements- and other outlets had previously covered the same info in some form (the WSJ as ex). Musk is obviously a public figure too, and has openly admitted to drug use and wanting to populate the world with his offspring.

But even with all of that, the NYT still gave musk DAYS to respond.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It doesn't matter what Twohey personally wanted. I doubt the paper would publish without the usual legal review for a story of this nature. And her story likely passed muster because it was all sourced in the documents, whether you believe what the underlying documents say or not. Every indication is that Twohey and the NYT stand behind the story. The one argument against that proferred by Baldoni supporters was that she hadn't published anything in a while, but now they've printed another article from her about a much more important than Baldoni with much less sourcing, so they apparently find her reliable. Again, you can disagree.

The stature of a writer can definitely influence internal decisions, even subconsciously.

It wasn’t sourced well, as you claim. It was mostly relying on a fair report privilege (that’s why they waited to publish even though they’d been working on it for awhile) from one woman’s perspective (who had a bias, that they didn’t bother to find) and texts that were arguably taken out of context, but in any event, all from one side. That’s not well sourced. It’s the opposite.

And as far as today’s piece, I’m sure it was in the works for awhile, in fact it was much MUCH better sourced than the Blake article- there were multiple people from different parts of Musks life who gave statements- and other outlets had previously covered the same info in some form (the WSJ as ex). Musk is obviously a public figure too, and has openly admitted to drug use and wanting to populate the world with his offspring.

But even with all of that, the NYT still gave musk DAYS to respond.

I think it's very hard to argue that an anonymous information, or even multiple anonymous informants, is a better source than someone's own words in an authenticated text exchange.

And yes, of course the existence of actual litigation and Lively's willingness to go on the record with regards to her allegations makes it easier for the NYT because they can simply say "here is what Lively alleges" and that does in fact protect them if anything she says turns out not to be true because her willingness to allege it in court proceedings protects them.

Which is why it was not necessary to give Baldoni multiple days to respond as they gave Musk. Anonymous sourcing is always dicier and journalists are always pushed to corroborate any anonymous or background source, and it's much riskier to go to print with an anonymously sourced article so of course they are going to give the subject more time to respond. From a legal perspective that will be necessary.

But there were ZERO anonymous sources on the Lively/Baldoni piece. They had Lively on the record an in her court filing, and they had authenticated text messages from the subjects themselves, in their own words. Nothing based on leaks or unsourced allegations, nothing based on rumor or innuendo. All very straightforward.

They are incredibly different articles from both a reporting and a legal standpoint. I see nothing strange or unethical about the approach on either article. Of course impossible to know what conversations were had behind the scenes. Also impossible to know what they held back in either story -- I guarantee both articles had details that were cut because they could not be sufficiently supported via sourcing. But having read both articles and being familiar with the sourcing on both, there's nothing out of sorts here.

- former fact-checker for multiple national publications

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It doesn't matter what Twohey personally wanted. I doubt the paper would publish without the usual legal review for a story of this nature. And her story likely passed muster because it was all sourced in the documents, whether you believe what the underlying documents say or not. Every indication is that Twohey and the NYT stand behind the story. The one argument against that proferred by Baldoni supporters was that she hadn't published anything in a while, but now they've printed another article from her about a much more important than Baldoni with much less sourcing, so they apparently find her reliable. Again, you can disagree.

The stature of a writer can definitely influence internal decisions, even subconsciously.

It wasn’t sourced well, as you claim. It was mostly relying on a fair report privilege (that’s why they waited to publish even though they’d been working on it for awhile) from one woman’s perspective (who had a bias, that they didn’t bother to find) and texts that were arguably taken out of context, but in any event, all from one side. That’s not well sourced. It’s the opposite.

And as far as today’s piece, I’m sure it was in the works for awhile, in fact it was much MUCH better sourced than the Blake article- there were multiple people from different parts of Musks life who gave statements- and other outlets had previously covered the same info in some form (the WSJ as ex). Musk is obviously a public figure too, and has openly admitted to drug use and wanting to populate the world with his offspring.

But even with all of that, the NYT still gave musk DAYS to respond.

I think it's very hard to argue that an anonymous information, or even multiple anonymous informants, is a better source than someone's own words in an authenticated text exchange.

And yes, of course the existence of actual litigation and Lively's willingness to go on the record with regards to her allegations makes it easier for the NYT because they can simply say "here is what Lively alleges" and that does in fact protect them if anything she says turns out not to be true because her willingness to allege it in court proceedings protects them.

Which is why it was not necessary to give Baldoni multiple days to respond as they gave Musk. Anonymous sourcing is always dicier and journalists are always pushed to corroborate any anonymous or background source, and it's much riskier to go to print with an anonymously sourced article so of course they are going to give the subject more time to respond. From a legal perspective that will be necessary.

But there were ZERO anonymous sources on the Lively/Baldoni piece. They had Lively on the record an in her court filing, and they had authenticated text messages from the subjects themselves, in their own words. Nothing based on leaks or unsourced allegations, nothing based on rumor or innuendo. All very straightforward.

They are incredibly different articles from both a reporting and a legal standpoint. I see nothing strange or unethical about the approach on either article. Of course impossible to know what conversations were had behind the scenes. Also impossible to know what they held back in either story -- I guarantee both articles had details that were cut because they could not be sufficiently supported via sourcing. But having read both articles and being familiar with the sourcing on both, there's nothing out of sorts here.

- former fact-checker for multiple national publications

So convenient we have had experts on sexual harassment, intimacy coordinators, and now fact checking, all on one dcum thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It doesn't matter what Twohey personally wanted. I doubt the paper would publish without the usual legal review for a story of this nature. And her story likely passed muster because it was all sourced in the documents, whether you believe what the underlying documents say or not. Every indication is that Twohey and the NYT stand behind the story. The one argument against that proferred by Baldoni supporters was that she hadn't published anything in a while, but now they've printed another article from her about a much more important than Baldoni with much less sourcing, so they apparently find her reliable. Again, you can disagree.

The stature of a writer can definitely influence internal decisions, even subconsciously.

It wasn’t sourced well, as you claim. It was mostly relying on a fair report privilege (that’s why they waited to publish even though they’d been working on it for awhile) from one woman’s perspective (who had a bias, that they didn’t bother to find) and texts that were arguably taken out of context, but in any event, all from one side. That’s not well sourced. It’s the opposite.

And as far as today’s piece, I’m sure it was in the works for awhile, in fact it was much MUCH better sourced than the Blake article- there were multiple people from different parts of Musks life who gave statements- and other outlets had previously covered the same info in some form (the WSJ as ex). Musk is obviously a public figure too, and has openly admitted to drug use and wanting to populate the world with his offspring.

But even with all of that, the NYT still gave musk DAYS to respond.

I think it's very hard to argue that an anonymous information, or even multiple anonymous informants, is a better source than someone's own words in an authenticated text exchange.

And yes, of course the existence of actual litigation and Lively's willingness to go on the record with regards to her allegations makes it easier for the NYT because they can simply say "here is what Lively alleges" and that does in fact protect them if anything she says turns out not to be true because her willingness to allege it in court proceedings protects them.

Which is why it was not necessary to give Baldoni multiple days to respond as they gave Musk. Anonymous sourcing is always dicier and journalists are always pushed to corroborate any anonymous or background source, and it's much riskier to go to print with an anonymously sourced article so of course they are going to give the subject more time to respond. From a legal perspective that will be necessary.

But there were ZERO anonymous sources on the Lively/Baldoni piece. They had Lively on the record an in her court filing, and they had authenticated text messages from the subjects themselves, in their own words. Nothing based on leaks or unsourced allegations, nothing based on rumor or innuendo. All very straightforward.

They are incredibly different articles from both a reporting and a legal standpoint. I see nothing strange or unethical about the approach on either article. Of course impossible to know what conversations were had behind the scenes. Also impossible to know what they held back in either story -- I guarantee both articles had details that were cut because they could not be sufficiently supported via sourcing. But having read both articles and being familiar with the sourcing on both, there's nothing out of sorts here.

- former fact-checker for multiple national publications

What do you mean? The Musk piece had 4+ specific people on the record, not including the WSJ piece, his own public words about using ketamine in taped interviews, smoking pot on air, publicly saying he thinks the world needs more kids from smart people and making clear he wants to have many children etc.

The piece wasn’t based on the whisperings of a few people off the record about issues he’s never spoken about.

The opposite. And yet they gave him days to respond….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It doesn't matter what Twohey personally wanted. I doubt the paper would publish without the usual legal review for a story of this nature. And her story likely passed muster because it was all sourced in the documents, whether you believe what the underlying documents say or not. Every indication is that Twohey and the NYT stand behind the story. The one argument against that proferred by Baldoni supporters was that she hadn't published anything in a while, but now they've printed another article from her about a much more important than Baldoni with much less sourcing, so they apparently find her reliable. Again, you can disagree.

Of course Twohey is not some rogue employee. I commented over a hundred pages ago it was laughable that naive people thought she would ever lose her gig for this. This is the Times’s business model. They are a rag with no ethics. Twohey will be a columnist soon or editor of the Atlantic. Reliable unethical foot soldiers always fail up.

[Anonymous]

everyone fixates on the emoji in the text exchange, when in blake's complaint and in the NYT video, there are text messages from jen abel saying something like, "the whispers, the sexual connotations, blah blah, gosh there is just soo much." when the NYT investigation first dropped, i interpreted that as jen abel saying she knew justin did a lot of horrible shit, and that he was lucky he got away with it.

twohey and blake did not include the texts from jen saying right after saying those things are not true. if twohey read through thousands of documents how did she miss that? i feel like that's where false light comes in, right? let's go full circle to why this whole thread was started.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It doesn't matter what Twohey personally wanted. I doubt the paper would publish without the usual legal review for a story of this nature. And her story likely passed muster because it was all sourced in the documents, whether you believe what the underlying documents say or not. Every indication is that Twohey and the NYT stand behind the story. The one argument against that proferred by Baldoni supporters was that she hadn't published anything in a while, but now they've printed another article from her about a much more important than Baldoni with much less sourcing, so they apparently find her reliable. Again, you can disagree.

The stature of a writer can definitely influence internal decisions, even subconsciously.

It wasn’t sourced well, as you claim. It was mostly relying on a fair report privilege (that’s why they waited to publish even though they’d been working on it for awhile) from one woman’s perspective (who had a bias, that they didn’t bother to find) and texts that were arguably taken out of context, but in any event, all from one side. That’s not well sourced. It’s the opposite.

And as far as today’s piece, I’m sure it was in the works for awhile, in fact it was much MUCH better sourced than the Blake article- there were multiple people from different parts of Musks life who gave statements- and other outlets had previously covered the same info in some form (the WSJ as ex). Musk is obviously a public figure too, and has openly admitted to drug use and wanting to populate the world with his offspring.

But even with all of that, the NYT still gave musk DAYS to respond.

I think it's very hard to argue that an anonymous information, or even multiple anonymous informants, is a better source than someone's own words in an authenticated text exchange.

And yes, of course the existence of actual litigation and Lively's willingness to go on the record with regards to her allegations makes it easier for the NYT because they can simply say "here is what Lively alleges" and that does in fact protect them if anything she says turns out not to be true because her willingness to allege it in court proceedings protects them.

in meghan twohey's video on the investigation, she says blake's complaint and NYT's own investigation reveal what really happened. the video is way sloppier than the article and i hope it comes to bite the NYT int he ass.