Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

I’m a lawyer and you don’t sound like a very good one. Any half way decent firm can right a strong sounding complaint but you can’t call it strong without reading the other side’s (counterclaim not even filed yet), and they are always limited by how truthful their client is.

Adding I’m not the lawyer who just posted about the NYT article. I guess a few of us took issue with your reasoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good analysis here

https://slate.com/life/2025/01/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-lawsuit-it-ends-with-us-new-york-times.html

Nope. This is just lazy reporting and I really am disturbed that so many journalists are getting away with this. Justin was not the one that showed his wife giving birth, it was his producing partner, Jamey Heath. It seems like people aren’t looking into the story at all, just posting their hot takes.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/see-video-blake-lively-shown-170444543.html

This is what was Blake was complaining was pornography. I think any reasonable person will agree that this is clearly not. It may not be appropriate and it’s absolutely mansplaining labor to a mom of 4, but I don’t know that it constitutes harassment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

lol. As if law firms never file complaints full of puffery and the facts in the light most favorable to their client? Baldoni has a pretty great lawyer too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also a lawyer and agree with the PPs that the NYT essentially republished the complaint as an article without trying to get Baldoni's side (at least, that's how I'm interpreting those posts). No doubt that this was because Lively's PR people came to them with the story, but (a) I don't think Baldoni has a claim for defamation because NYT is not required to be unbiased and it does not appear they published the story with malice or reckless disregard for the truth and (b) I tend to think NYT went for it more because of their left-leaning politics and that this represented another MeToo type storyline rather than any fealty to Lively or Reynolds. Basically I think if any well known actress came to them with a complaint that had as much detail and documentation backing it as Lively's, they would have published a similar story in search of starting another MeToo conversation. But then, I am more interested in the legal angle here and not that familiar with Lively and Reynolds and their Hollywood connections.

Lawyer here again, I’m not sure if I agree. It’s totally sloppy journalism and I can’t figure out why they’d run for a cheap story like this.

There is a defense to a defamation claim called Fair report privilege, which does give the Times some leeway to present info from a litigation (which if from one party’s papers is always going to be totally one sided) without further context, but there are limitations to that defense, and their piece went somewhat far beyond that, especially with its salacious headline.

As far as which standard applies, reckless versus negligence, the issue of which one applies is a decision for the judge. The issue of whether the standard was violated is a factual issue for a jury. It’s way too early to make either of those calls, but my bet is that Baldoni will easily survive the Times’ early stage motion to dismiss.

Let’s be honest, the quality of journalism at the Times has been on the decline for a few decades. Multiple cases of writers just making things up or not really investigating what they are told by “unnamed sources,” i.e. weapons of mass destruction and erroneously reporting that FBI investigation of Trump was closed before 2016 election. I imagine standards are even lower in the Arts and Entertainment section. This part of the whole mess is the most interesting to me, and I think it will be really embarrassing for the Times, deservedly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

I’m a lawyer and you don’t sound like a very good one. Any half way decent firm can right a strong sounding complaint but you can’t call it strong without reading the other side’s (counterclaim not even filed yet), and they are always limited by how truthful their client is.

DP, I don't necessarily agree. For example, a complaint that articulates a cause of action is better than one that doesn't, and the answer does not need to contain counterclaims or additional facts. It's enough to argue that the facts presented by the plaintiff, even if true, do not give rise a claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good analysis here

https://slate.com/life/2025/01/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-lawsuit-it-ends-with-us-new-york-times.html

I stopped reading when I realized they couldn’t get even basic facts straight, like that the allegation is that heath showed her the video of his wife giving birth, not baldoni. Slate incorrectly says it was baldoni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good analysis here

https://slate.com/life/2025/01/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-lawsuit-it-ends-with-us-new-york-times.html

Nope. This is just lazy reporting and I really am disturbed that so many journalists are getting away with this. Justin was not the one that showed his wife giving birth, it was his producing partner, Jamey Heath. It seems like people aren’t looking into the story at all, just posting their hot takes.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/see-video-blake-lively-shown-170444543.html

This is what was Blake was complaining was pornography. I think any reasonable person will agree that this is clearly not. It may not be appropriate and it’s absolutely mansplaining labor to a mom of 4, but I don’t know that it constitutes harassment.

It’s not reasonable to show your wife giving birth to someone who didn’t ask to see it lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

I’m a lawyer and you don’t sound like a very good one. Any half way decent firm can right a strong sounding complaint but you can’t call it strong without reading the other side’s (counterclaim not even filed yet), and they are always limited by how truthful their client is.

DP, I don't necessarily agree. For example, a complaint that articulates a cause of action is better than one that doesn't, and the answer does not need to contain counterclaims or additional facts. It's enough to argue that the facts presented by the plaintiff, even if true, do not give rise a claim.

Most competent firms can write complaint that can survive a motion to dismiss. That doesn’t mean they have a strong enough case to prevail at trial, agreed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

I’m a lawyer and you don’t sound like a very good one. Any half way decent firm can right a strong sounding complaint but you can’t call it strong without reading the other side’s (counterclaim not even filed yet), and they are always limited by how truthful their client is.

DP, I don't necessarily agree. For example, a complaint that articulates a cause of action is better than one that doesn't, and the answer does not need to contain counterclaims or additional facts. It's enough to argue that the facts presented by the plaintiff, even if true, do not give rise a claim.

Most competent firms can write complaint that can survive a motion to dismiss. That doesn’t mean they have a strong enough case to prevail at trial, agreed?

Of course. I think her complaint weaves a decent narrative that she experienced inappropriate actions on set that gave rise to a bona fide complaint of sexual harassment (not necessarily that she established harassment occurred, but that she made a good faith claim of it when she insisted upon certain conditions to return to set, documented in the rider) and that a smear campaign was brought against her as retaliation for reporting that harassment. That doesn't mean her claims are all true or that he'll be found liable. I found some of his counter-evidence compelling (that she invited him to her dressing room while she was pumping, which is similar enough to breastfeeding that it's hard for her to argue she felt harassed by that) and some of it not so much (her not wanting to meet with the intimacy coordinator on a particular occasion).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good analysis here

https://slate.com/life/2025/01/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-lawsuit-it-ends-with-us-new-york-times.html

Nope. This is just lazy reporting and I really am disturbed that so many journalists are getting away with this. Justin was not the one that showed his wife giving birth, it was his producing partner, Jamey Heath. It seems like people aren’t looking into the story at all, just posting their hot takes.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/see-video-blake-lively-shown-170444543.html

This is what was Blake was complaining was pornography. I think any reasonable person will agree that this is clearly not. It may not be appropriate and it’s absolutely mansplaining labor to a mom of 4, but I don’t know that it constitutes harassment.

Agreed. And it was a key scene in the film- so it makes sense there would be discussion about the details, not just letting Lively do what she wanted. I can believe she felt uncomfortable though during the filming and I wonder why it wasn’t better planned with the intimacy coordinator. No actress should be put on the spot being pressured to take her clothes off, even if it’s part of a bona fide discussion about how a scene should go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good analysis here

https://slate.com/life/2025/01/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-lawsuit-it-ends-with-us-new-york-times.html

Nope. This is just lazy reporting and I really am disturbed that so many journalists are getting away with this. Justin was not the one that showed his wife giving birth, it was his producing partner, Jamey Heath. It seems like people aren’t looking into the story at all, just posting their hot takes.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/see-video-blake-lively-shown-170444543.html

This is what was Blake was complaining was pornography. I think any reasonable person will agree that this is clearly not. It may not be appropriate and it’s absolutely mansplaining labor to a mom of 4, but I don’t know that it constitutes harassment.

It’s not reasonable to show your wife giving birth to someone who didn’t ask to see it lol

it’s very reasonable to look at childbirth videos when your job is … to replicate childbirth on film.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

lol. As if law firms never file complaints full of puffery and the facts in the light most favorable to their client? Baldoni has a pretty great lawyer too.

NYT lawyer here again… well, yeah, that’s what they’re supposed to do. Advocate. But that doesn’t mean her complaint wasn’t compelling. I can only assume that was the point this poster was making, and noticing it had good lawyers behind it who we can only assume wouldn’t take a totally ridiculous or frivolous case.

[Anonymous]

I think there are several of us lawyers posting at the same time. I just published a lawyer post about NYT and am not either of the two PPs, haha,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

lol. As if law firms never file complaints full of puffery and the facts in the light most favorable to their client? Baldoni has a pretty great lawyer too.

NYT lawyer here again… well, yeah, that’s what they’re supposed to do. Advocate. But that doesn’t mean her complaint wasn’t compelling. I can only assume that was the point this poster was making, and noticing it had good lawyers behind it who we can only assume wouldn’t take a totally ridiculous or frivolous case.

lol you have a very rose colored view. Law firms will do anything for money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also a lawyer and agree with the PPs that the NYT essentially republished the complaint as an article without trying to get Baldoni's side (at least, that's how I'm interpreting those posts). No doubt that this was because Lively's PR people came to them with the story, but (a) I don't think Baldoni has a claim for defamation because NYT is not required to be unbiased and it does not appear they published the story with malice or reckless disregard for the truth and (b) I tend to think NYT went for it more because of their left-leaning politics and that this represented another MeToo type storyline rather than any fealty to Lively or Reynolds. Basically I think if any well known actress came to them with a complaint that had as much detail and documentation backing it as Lively's, they would have published a similar story in search of starting another MeToo conversation. But then, I am more interested in the legal angle here and not that familiar with Lively and Reynolds and their Hollywood connections.

Lawyer here again, I’m not sure if I agree. It’s totally sloppy journalism and I can’t figure out why they’d run for a cheap story like this.

There is a defense to a defamation claim called Fair report privilege, which does give the Times some leeway to present info from a litigation (which if from one party’s papers is always going to be totally one sided) without further context, but there are limitations to that defense, and their piece went somewhat far beyond that, especially with its salacious headline.

As far as which standard applies, reckless versus negligence, the issue of which one applies is a decision for the judge. The issue of whether the standard was violated is a factual issue for a jury. It’s way too early to make either of those calls, but my bet is that Baldoni will easily survive the Times’ early stage motion to dismiss.

Let’s be honest, the quality of journalism at the Times has been on the decline for a few decades. Multiple cases of writers just making things up or not really investigating what they are told by “unnamed sources,” i.e. weapons of mass destruction and erroneously reporting that FBI investigation of Trump was closed before 2016 election. I imagine standards are even lower in the Arts and Entertainment section. This part of the whole mess is the most interesting to me, and I think it will be really embarrassing for the Times, deservedly.

I think the quality of the NY times is generally very very high. Investigative journalism is hard and expensive and they get a lot right. It’s notable that your two examples are from years ago. There are very few other publication in the US who do what the NYT does every day.

But yeah, this piece seemed weak to me. I don’t understand how it snuck through like this. Even if it’s not defamation at the end of the day (fair report may protect them), it was remarkably one sided and not up to their typical journalistic standards.