Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like hiring that PR firm, after he had promised not to retaliate against Lively, and then egging the PR firm on to protect him, would be retaliation. Especially if it was successful. The PR form reported that Jed Wallace's team, in particular, had been successful. Wallace's team engages in astroturfing and social media manipulation. The PR firm reported that "we've started to see a shift on social, due largely to Jed and his team's efforts to shift the narrative toward shining a spotlight on Blake and Ryan."

That sounds like retaliation. Someone else in the thread noted that Lively noticed a deposition for Wallace, maybe for tomorrow?

Seems like either Wallace was actually doing nothing (as Baldoni's team now says) but taking credit for the shift in public opinion, or was actually posting negative stuff on Lively that would seem to amount to retaliation. Guess we'll see.

Yep, the retaliation has always been Blake’s strongest claim. But still not a slam dunk since there wasn’t temporal proximity to her original complaint. On the contrary, he has a lot of evidence that he bent over backwards after the complaint to make her happy. Also his decision to hire PR and Wallace can be seen as reacting her her decisions to undermine him because she wanted to take control of the movie, not harassment. Finally to the extent that her harassment claims seem unfounded, that could also weaken the retaliation claim. You don’t have to prove the underlying harassment to show retaliation for the complaint, but all of her complaints really are seeming off-the-wall.

Thank you for this! I’ve tried asking the question a few different ways on this and the other thread, and this helps me (nonlawyer) understand better.

no worries. I really think it’s the most important legal concept to understand in this whole mess. it’s hard to prove sexual harassment but MUCH easier to prove retaliation. retaliation has sunk many a boss. And of course it is very hard psychologically not to relatiate when you feel someone has made an exaggerated complaint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYT podcast is very telling.

However, I don’t think he ever thought he’d win it, but wanted discovery.

The billionaire is also Bahai and his wife is involved with Wayfair, so $ spigot is not going to be turned off soon.

Totally disagree, I just listened to it and would like that half hour back. Listen if you want to hear Twohey regurgitate her article while her co worker barely reacts. She doesn’t say one word about how Blake’s complaint came to her attention (CA complaint was not public) nor does she say anything about how she investigated the story. It’s a complete joke, about what you would expect from a newspaper interviewing their own reporter about an article they are being sued for.

I read the transcript in 5 minutes. It’s a good summary for anyone who’s not dialed in.

Do you have a link to it? I can’t find it on the NYT app

Babe, are you trolling with all these questions about where basic things are? I was able to pull up the episode with the transcript after a quick google search.

Huh? What other questions?

DP but there have been multiple questions about this podcast that are like "please summarize it for me here" or "can you link I can't possibly find it." It's weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a tale as old as time. A he said she said, the he is a prominent hollywood player who hires a vicious PR firm, the internet rips the woman apart. Zero attempts to look at the situation from both sides. Please provide a single example where in a contentious dispute between a man and a woman in hollywood the woman is believed and the man is injured.

It only happens when someone is SUCH a predator that they assault SO many women that it can't be explained away (weinstein/cosby). And even then they end up getting out of jail!

Prediction: this turns into a 150 page thread talking about what a see you next tuesday you all think she is. Just like all the other multi hundred long page threads in this forum. There isn't one about a man though! It's ALWAYS about the woman. Examine your ingrained misogyny people.

Second prediction: I get a bunch of people replying to me yelling about Blake being awful and Baldoni being her victim and I just blindly take the woman's side.

I'll just get in front of all of those and tell you what I would say in response. These situations are almost always complex with different levels of power at play (in this case, while Lively and Reynolds have significantly higher household name recognition, Baldoni has extremely powerful industry connections, so is not the david to their goliath). And I believe that almost every celebrity is somewhat egotistical/narcissistic almost by the nature of the gig. Therefore it is my belief that there is almost NEVER a party completely innocent here. There is always blame to be found on both sides because it is almost always giant egos fighting with each other. But here, there is never nuance, it is always the woman sucks and the poor man we had a crush on 10 years ago because he was hot in that movie that one time is innocent.

lol at Baldoni being considered a Hollywood power player with "extremely powerful industry connections." Baldoni is backed by a billionaire with no ties to Hollywood. That matters, and is why Blake and Ryan were able to throw around their weight so much. You seem to acknowledge the complicated dynamics here yet are getting so many basic things wrong.

Thanks for the bolded, exactly. While blake attended the film with other cast members, baldoni attended with sony execs. He has a whole production studio with deep deep pockets. I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to further expound upon that.

Yeah, he's so powerful that he was sent to the basement during his own premiere.

He watched the premiere at the same time but in a different theatre. He didn't watch it in a basement.

Right, he was just in the basement for the party part of the premiere, and a different theater for the movie screening. That isn’t any better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYT podcast is very telling.

However, I don’t think he ever thought he’d win it, but wanted discovery.

The billionaire is also Bahai and his wife is involved with Wayfair, so $ spigot is not going to be turned off soon.

Totally disagree, I just listened to it and would like that half hour back. Listen if you want to hear Twohey regurgitate her article while her co worker barely reacts. She doesn’t say one word about how Blake’s complaint came to her attention (CA complaint was not public) nor does she say anything about how she investigated the story. It’s a complete joke, about what you would expect from a newspaper interviewing their own reporter about an article they are being sued for.

I read the transcript in 5 minutes. It’s a good summary for anyone who’s not dialed in.

Do you have a link to it? I can’t find it on the NYT app

Babe, are you trolling with all these questions about where basic things are? I was able to pull up the episode with the transcript after a quick google search.

Huh? What other questions?

DP but there have been multiple questions about this podcast that are like "please summarize it for me here" or "can you link I can't possibly find it." It's weird.

Especially in light of the fact it’s a complete nothing burger, I’d be interested in Twomey being interviewed by another outlet, instead of a NY Times recitation of her article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a tale as old as time. A he said she said, the he is a prominent hollywood player who hires a vicious PR firm, the internet rips the woman apart. Zero attempts to look at the situation from both sides. Please provide a single example where in a contentious dispute between a man and a woman in hollywood the woman is believed and the man is injured.

It only happens when someone is SUCH a predator that they assault SO many women that it can't be explained away (weinstein/cosby). And even then they end up getting out of jail!

Prediction: this turns into a 150 page thread talking about what a see you next tuesday you all think she is. Just like all the other multi hundred long page threads in this forum. There isn't one about a man though! It's ALWAYS about the woman. Examine your ingrained misogyny people.

Second prediction: I get a bunch of people replying to me yelling about Blake being awful and Baldoni being her victim and I just blindly take the woman's side.

I'll just get in front of all of those and tell you what I would say in response. These situations are almost always complex with different levels of power at play (in this case, while Lively and Reynolds have significantly higher household name recognition, Baldoni has extremely powerful industry connections, so is not the david to their goliath). And I believe that almost every celebrity is somewhat egotistical/narcissistic almost by the nature of the gig. Therefore it is my belief that there is almost NEVER a party completely innocent here. There is always blame to be found on both sides because it is almost always giant egos fighting with each other. But here, there is never nuance, it is always the woman sucks and the poor man we had a crush on 10 years ago because he was hot in that movie that one time is innocent.

lol at Baldoni being considered a Hollywood power player with "extremely powerful industry connections." Baldoni is backed by a billionaire with no ties to Hollywood. That matters, and is why Blake and Ryan were able to throw around their weight so much. You seem to acknowledge the complicated dynamics here yet are getting so many basic things wrong.

Thanks for the bolded, exactly. While blake attended the film with other cast members, baldoni attended with sony execs. He has a whole production studio with deep deep pockets. I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to further expound upon that.

Yeah, he's so powerful that he was sent to the basement during his own premiere.

He watched the premiere at the same time but in a different theatre. He didn't watch it in a basement.

Right, he was just in the basement for the party part of the premiere, and a different theater for the movie screening. That isn’t any better.

I don’t understand how he let this happen in the first place. How did BL expect that to be viewed by the general public once the details came out that she forced the director to watch the premier of his own film segregated from his cast in a basement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYT podcast is very telling.

However, I don’t think he ever thought he’d win it, but wanted discovery.

The billionaire is also Bahai and his wife is involved with Wayfair, so $ spigot is not going to be turned off soon.

Totally disagree, I just listened to it and would like that half hour back. Listen if you want to hear Twohey regurgitate her article while her co worker barely reacts. She doesn’t say one word about how Blake’s complaint came to her attention (CA complaint was not public) nor does she say anything about how she investigated the story. It’s a complete joke, about what you would expect from a newspaper interviewing their own reporter about an article they are being sued for.

I read the transcript in 5 minutes. It’s a good summary for anyone who’s not dialed in.

They can just read her article, there is nothing new in the interview.

I wonder why Baldoni filed that part of his lawsuits in CA? And not NY?

Because he lives in California. The Lively lawsuit had already been filed in NY.

But his other case is in NY and NYT is based in NY so it might make sense to have all the cases there. I’m guessing it’s a specific legal move but I can’t say what it is

If I was representing him, I would pick CA. More likely to get a jury familiar with how entertainment industry works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a tale as old as time. A he said she said, the he is a prominent hollywood player who hires a vicious PR firm, the internet rips the woman apart. Zero attempts to look at the situation from both sides. Please provide a single example where in a contentious dispute between a man and a woman in hollywood the woman is believed and the man is injured.

It only happens when someone is SUCH a predator that they assault SO many women that it can't be explained away (weinstein/cosby). And even then they end up getting out of jail!

Prediction: this turns into a 150 page thread talking about what a see you next tuesday you all think she is. Just like all the other multi hundred long page threads in this forum. There isn't one about a man though! It's ALWAYS about the woman. Examine your ingrained misogyny people.

Second prediction: I get a bunch of people replying to me yelling about Blake being awful and Baldoni being her victim and I just blindly take the woman's side.

I'll just get in front of all of those and tell you what I would say in response. These situations are almost always complex with different levels of power at play (in this case, while Lively and Reynolds have significantly higher household name recognition, Baldoni has extremely powerful industry connections, so is not the david to their goliath). And I believe that almost every celebrity is somewhat egotistical/narcissistic almost by the nature of the gig. Therefore it is my belief that there is almost NEVER a party completely innocent here. There is always blame to be found on both sides because it is almost always giant egos fighting with each other. But here, there is never nuance, it is always the woman sucks and the poor man we had a crush on 10 years ago because he was hot in that movie that one time is innocent.

lol at Baldoni being considered a Hollywood power player with "extremely powerful industry connections." Baldoni is backed by a billionaire with no ties to Hollywood. That matters, and is why Blake and Ryan were able to throw around their weight so much. You seem to acknowledge the complicated dynamics here yet are getting so many basic things wrong.

Thanks for the bolded, exactly. While blake attended the film with other cast members, baldoni attended with sony execs. He has a whole production studio with deep deep pockets. I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to further expound upon that.

Yeah, he's so powerful that he was sent to the basement during his own premiere.

The basement with the sony execs? He showed up in a pink suit and posed with his wife this is absurd

https://pagesix.com/2024/08/09/entertainment/justin-baldoni-made-blake-lively-uncomfortable-sources/

At the New York premiere, Baldoni, 40, arrived with his wife, Emily, who has a small role as a doctor in the movie. Lively, meanwhile, posed on the carpet with co-star Brandon Sklenar as well as her husband Reynolds and pal Hugh Jackman.

Sources said Baldoni sat in his one theater at AMC Lincoln Square with family, friends and execs from Sony and Baldoni’s production company, while Lively watched the movie in a different theater with her own guests, including sister Robyn Lively and her nieces and nephews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a tale as old as time. A he said she said, the he is a prominent hollywood player who hires a vicious PR firm, the internet rips the woman apart. Zero attempts to look at the situation from both sides. Please provide a single example where in a contentious dispute between a man and a woman in hollywood the woman is believed and the man is injured.

It only happens when someone is SUCH a predator that they assault SO many women that it can't be explained away (weinstein/cosby). And even then they end up getting out of jail!

Prediction: this turns into a 150 page thread talking about what a see you next tuesday you all think she is. Just like all the other multi hundred long page threads in this forum. There isn't one about a man though! It's ALWAYS about the woman. Examine your ingrained misogyny people.

Second prediction: I get a bunch of people replying to me yelling about Blake being awful and Baldoni being her victim and I just blindly take the woman's side.

I'll just get in front of all of those and tell you what I would say in response. These situations are almost always complex with different levels of power at play (in this case, while Lively and Reynolds have significantly higher household name recognition, Baldoni has extremely powerful industry connections, so is not the david to their goliath). And I believe that almost every celebrity is somewhat egotistical/narcissistic almost by the nature of the gig. Therefore it is my belief that there is almost NEVER a party completely innocent here. There is always blame to be found on both sides because it is almost always giant egos fighting with each other. But here, there is never nuance, it is always the woman sucks and the poor man we had a crush on 10 years ago because he was hot in that movie that one time is innocent.

lol at Baldoni being considered a Hollywood power player with "extremely powerful industry connections." Baldoni is backed by a billionaire with no ties to Hollywood. That matters, and is why Blake and Ryan were able to throw around their weight so much. You seem to acknowledge the complicated dynamics here yet are getting so many basic things wrong.

Thanks for the bolded, exactly. While blake attended the film with other cast members, baldoni attended with sony execs. He has a whole production studio with deep deep pockets. I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to further expound upon that.

Yeah, he's so powerful that he was sent to the basement during his own premiere.

He watched the premiere at the same time but in a different theatre. He didn't watch it in a basement.

Right, he was just in the basement for the party part of the premiere, and a different theater for the movie screening. That isn’t any better.

I don’t understand how he let this happen in the first place. How did BL expect that to be viewed by the general public once the details came out that she forced the director to watch the premier of his own film segregated from his cast in a basement?

It's really misleading to say Baldoni "spent" or "watched" the premiere in the basement. That's not what happened.

Baldoni walked the red carpet, with his wife and friends and people from the studio and Wayfarer. I have seen interviews of him on the red carpet as well as photos of him with his wife and friends.

It sounds like then he and his family went into a basement area while Lively and the rest of the cast walked the carpet, to avoid them running into each other in the building as they came in. I don't know how long this went on though. That's when Baldoni and co. took the photos they've posted.

Then they both watched the movie, but in separate theaters. Lively and the rest of the cast in one theater, Baldoni with studio execs in the other theater. Sounds like the theaters were pretty much the same.

I don't know if there was a party afterwards but if so it wouldn't have been at the theater anyway (the theater is not really set up for that kind of thing, I have been there). I could see someone associated with the movie having a post-premier party at a restaurant or someone's house but I'm betting that due to all the bad blood, they didn't do this.

So Baldoni didn't spend the premier in the basement. He didn't watch the premier in the basement. He spent some amount of time in the basement while Lively and the rest of the cast walked the carpet, posed for photos, and talked to press that was there. I can see how this would be upsetting and why he would be bothered not to be able to walk with the cast, and also why he'd be worried that the segregated premier would be be bad for his public image. But let's be honest about what happened. It's not like he was locked in a basement for the duration. He had a fairly normal premiere experience except for the fact that he was kept separate from the cast of the movie, apparently at their collective request.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a tale as old as time. A he said she said, the he is a prominent hollywood player who hires a vicious PR firm, the internet rips the woman apart. Zero attempts to look at the situation from both sides. Please provide a single example where in a contentious dispute between a man and a woman in hollywood the woman is believed and the man is injured.

It only happens when someone is SUCH a predator that they assault SO many women that it can't be explained away (weinstein/cosby). And even then they end up getting out of jail!

Prediction: this turns into a 150 page thread talking about what a see you next tuesday you all think she is. Just like all the other multi hundred long page threads in this forum. There isn't one about a man though! It's ALWAYS about the woman. Examine your ingrained misogyny people.

Second prediction: I get a bunch of people replying to me yelling about Blake being awful and Baldoni being her victim and I just blindly take the woman's side.

I'll just get in front of all of those and tell you what I would say in response. These situations are almost always complex with different levels of power at play (in this case, while Lively and Reynolds have significantly higher household name recognition, Baldoni has extremely powerful industry connections, so is not the david to their goliath). And I believe that almost every celebrity is somewhat egotistical/narcissistic almost by the nature of the gig. Therefore it is my belief that there is almost NEVER a party completely innocent here. There is always blame to be found on both sides because it is almost always giant egos fighting with each other. But here, there is never nuance, it is always the woman sucks and the poor man we had a crush on 10 years ago because he was hot in that movie that one time is innocent.

lol at Baldoni being considered a Hollywood power player with "extremely powerful industry connections." Baldoni is backed by a billionaire with no ties to Hollywood. That matters, and is why Blake and Ryan were able to throw around their weight so much. You seem to acknowledge the complicated dynamics here yet are getting so many basic things wrong.

Thanks for the bolded, exactly. While blake attended the film with other cast members, baldoni attended with sony execs. He has a whole production studio with deep deep pockets. I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to further expound upon that.

Yeah, he's so powerful that he was sent to the basement during his own premiere.

The basement with the sony execs? He showed up in a pink suit and posed with his wife this is absurd

https://pagesix.com/2024/08/09/entertainment/justin-baldoni-made-blake-lively-uncomfortable-sources/

At the New York premiere, Baldoni, 40, arrived with his wife, Emily, who has a small role as a doctor in the movie. Lively, meanwhile, posed on the carpet with co-star Brandon Sklenar as well as her husband Reynolds and pal Hugh Jackman.

Sources said Baldoni sat in his one theater at AMC Lincoln Square with family, friends and execs from Sony and Baldoni’s production company, while Lively watched the movie in a different theater with her own guests, including sister Robyn Lively and her nieces and nephews.

What don’t you get? He watched the movie in a different screening room than Blake and the rest of the cast and was sent to the basement after walking the red carpet while Blake and the rest of the cast milled about the theater, for the hour or so before the screenings began.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYT podcast is very telling.

However, I don’t think he ever thought he’d win it, but wanted discovery.

The billionaire is also Bahai and his wife is involved with Wayfair, so $ spigot is not going to be turned off soon.

Totally disagree, I just listened to it and would like that half hour back. Listen if you want to hear Twohey regurgitate her article while her co worker barely reacts. She doesn’t say one word about how Blake’s complaint came to her attention (CA complaint was not public) nor does she say anything about how she investigated the story. It’s a complete joke, about what you would expect from a newspaper interviewing their own reporter about an article they are being sued for.

I read the transcript in 5 minutes. It’s a good summary for anyone who’s not dialed in.

They can just read her article, there is nothing new in the interview.

I wonder why Baldoni filed that part of his lawsuits in CA? And not NY?

Because he lives in California. The Lively lawsuit had already been filed in NY.

But his other case is in NY and NYT is based in NY so it might make sense to have all the cases there. I’m guessing it’s a specific legal move but I can’t say what it is

If I was representing him, I would pick CA. More likely to get a jury familiar with how entertainment industry works.

I’d think the CA jury preference would be for the SH related claims, not his defamation claims against the NYT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a tale as old as time. A he said she said, the he is a prominent hollywood player who hires a vicious PR firm, the internet rips the woman apart. Zero attempts to look at the situation from both sides. Please provide a single example where in a contentious dispute between a man and a woman in hollywood the woman is believed and the man is injured.

It only happens when someone is SUCH a predator that they assault SO many women that it can't be explained away (weinstein/cosby). And even then they end up getting out of jail!

Prediction: this turns into a 150 page thread talking about what a see you next tuesday you all think she is. Just like all the other multi hundred long page threads in this forum. There isn't one about a man though! It's ALWAYS about the woman. Examine your ingrained misogyny people.

Second prediction: I get a bunch of people replying to me yelling about Blake being awful and Baldoni being her victim and I just blindly take the woman's side.

I'll just get in front of all of those and tell you what I would say in response. These situations are almost always complex with different levels of power at play (in this case, while Lively and Reynolds have significantly higher household name recognition, Baldoni has extremely powerful industry connections, so is not the david to their goliath). And I believe that almost every celebrity is somewhat egotistical/narcissistic almost by the nature of the gig. Therefore it is my belief that there is almost NEVER a party completely innocent here. There is always blame to be found on both sides because it is almost always giant egos fighting with each other. But here, there is never nuance, it is always the woman sucks and the poor man we had a crush on 10 years ago because he was hot in that movie that one time is innocent.

lol at Baldoni being considered a Hollywood power player with "extremely powerful industry connections." Baldoni is backed by a billionaire with no ties to Hollywood. That matters, and is why Blake and Ryan were able to throw around their weight so much. You seem to acknowledge the complicated dynamics here yet are getting so many basic things wrong.

Thanks for the bolded, exactly. While blake attended the film with other cast members, baldoni attended with sony execs. He has a whole production studio with deep deep pockets. I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to further expound upon that.

Yeah, he's so powerful that he was sent to the basement during his own premiere.

He watched the premiere at the same time but in a different theatre. He didn't watch it in a basement.

Right, he was just in the basement for the party part of the premiere, and a different theater for the movie screening. That isn’t any better.

I don’t understand how he let this happen in the first place. How did BL expect that to be viewed by the general public once the details came out that she forced the director to watch the premier of his own film segregated from his cast in a basement?

It's really misleading to say Baldoni "spent" or "watched" the premiere in the basement. That's not what happened.

Baldoni walked the red carpet, with his wife and friends and people from the studio and Wayfarer. I have seen interviews of him on the red carpet as well as photos of him with his wife and friends.

It sounds like then he and his family went into a basement area while Lively and the rest of the cast walked the carpet, to avoid them running into each other in the building as they came in. I don't know how long this went on though. That's when Baldoni and co. took the photos they've posted.

Then they both watched the movie, but in separate theaters. Lively and the rest of the cast in one theater, Baldoni with studio execs in the other theater. Sounds like the theaters were pretty much the same.

I don't know if there was a party afterwards but if so it wouldn't have been at the theater anyway (the theater is not really set up for that kind of thing, I have been there). I could see someone associated with the movie having a post-premier party at a restaurant or someone's house but I'm betting that due to all the bad blood, they didn't do this.

So Baldoni didn't spend the premier in the basement. He didn't watch the premier in the basement. He spent some amount of time in the basement while Lively and the rest of the cast walked the carpet, posed for photos, and talked to press that was there. I can see how this would be upsetting and why he would be bothered not to be able to walk with the cast, and also why he'd be worried that the segregated premier would be be bad for his public image. But let's be honest about what happened. It's not like he was locked in a basement for the duration. He had a fairly normal premiere experience except for the fact that he was kept separate from the cast of the movie, apparently at their collective request.

So, in fact, he was in the basement and a separate screening room. We agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYT podcast is very telling.

However, I don’t think he ever thought he’d win it, but wanted discovery.

The billionaire is also Bahai and his wife is involved with Wayfair, so $ spigot is not going to be turned off soon.

Totally disagree, I just listened to it and would like that half hour back. Listen if you want to hear Twohey regurgitate her article while her co worker barely reacts. She doesn’t say one word about how Blake’s complaint came to her attention (CA complaint was not public) nor does she say anything about how she investigated the story. It’s a complete joke, about what you would expect from a newspaper interviewing their own reporter about an article they are being sued for.

I read the transcript in 5 minutes. It’s a good summary for anyone who’s not dialed in.

They can just read her article, there is nothing new in the interview.

I wonder why Baldoni filed that part of his lawsuits in CA? And not NY?

Because he lives in California. The Lively lawsuit had already been filed in NY.

But his other case is in NY and NYT is based in NY so it might make sense to have all the cases there. I’m guessing it’s a specific legal move but I can’t say what it is

If I was representing him, I would pick CA. More likely to get a jury familiar with how entertainment industry works.

I’d think the CA jury preference would be for the SH related claims, not his defamation claims against the NYT.

That’s part of the defamation case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYT podcast is very telling.

However, I don’t think he ever thought he’d win it, but wanted discovery.

The billionaire is also Bahai and his wife is involved with Wayfair, so $ spigot is not going to be turned off soon.

Totally disagree, I just listened to it and would like that half hour back. Listen if you want to hear Twohey regurgitate her article while her co worker barely reacts. She doesn’t say one word about how Blake’s complaint came to her attention (CA complaint was not public) nor does she say anything about how she investigated the story. It’s a complete joke, about what you would expect from a newspaper interviewing their own reporter about an article they are being sued for.

I read the transcript in 5 minutes. It’s a good summary for anyone who’s not dialed in.

Do you have a link to it? I can’t find it on the NYT app

Babe, are you trolling with all these questions about where basic things are? I was able to pull up the episode with the transcript after a quick google search.

Huh? What other questions?

DP but there have been multiple questions about this podcast that are like "please summarize it for me here" or "can you link I can't possibly find it." It's weird.

Especially in light of the fact it’s a complete nothing burger, I’d be interested in Twomey being interviewed by another outlet, instead of a NY Times recitation of her article.

NP. I just listened to it. Pretty astounding that the NYT gave all of them just 14 hours to respond. You can argue Baldoni would have a lawyer on call, but the PR people? So weird that they felt the need to rush this story. There was nothing urgent about it that I can see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYT podcast is very telling.

However, I don’t think he ever thought he’d win it, but wanted discovery.

The billionaire is also Bahai and his wife is involved with Wayfair, so $ spigot is not going to be turned off soon.

Totally disagree, I just listened to it and would like that half hour back. Listen if you want to hear Twohey regurgitate her article while her co worker barely reacts. She doesn’t say one word about how Blake’s complaint came to her attention (CA complaint was not public) nor does she say anything about how she investigated the story. It’s a complete joke, about what you would expect from a newspaper interviewing their own reporter about an article they are being sued for.

I read the transcript in 5 minutes. It’s a good summary for anyone who’s not dialed in.

They can just read her article, there is nothing new in the interview.

I wonder why Baldoni filed that part of his lawsuits in CA? And not NY?

Because he lives in California. The Lively lawsuit had already been filed in NY.

But his other case is in NY and NYT is based in NY so it might make sense to have all the cases there. I’m guessing it’s a specific legal move but I can’t say what it is

If I was representing him, I would pick CA. More likely to get a jury familiar with how entertainment industry works.

I’d think the CA jury preference would be for the SH related claims, not his defamation claims against the NYT.

That’s part of the defamation case.

I think his defamation case related to the SH claims from Blake is in SDNY. But I believe he filed the NYT case in CA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a tale as old as time. A he said she said, the he is a prominent hollywood player who hires a vicious PR firm, the internet rips the woman apart. Zero attempts to look at the situation from both sides. Please provide a single example where in a contentious dispute between a man and a woman in hollywood the woman is believed and the man is injured.

It only happens when someone is SUCH a predator that they assault SO many women that it can't be explained away (weinstein/cosby). And even then they end up getting out of jail!

Prediction: this turns into a 150 page thread talking about what a see you next tuesday you all think she is. Just like all the other multi hundred long page threads in this forum. There isn't one about a man though! It's ALWAYS about the woman. Examine your ingrained misogyny people.

Second prediction: I get a bunch of people replying to me yelling about Blake being awful and Baldoni being her victim and I just blindly take the woman's side.

I'll just get in front of all of those and tell you what I would say in response. These situations are almost always complex with different levels of power at play (in this case, while Lively and Reynolds have significantly higher household name recognition, Baldoni has extremely powerful industry connections, so is not the david to their goliath). And I believe that almost every celebrity is somewhat egotistical/narcissistic almost by the nature of the gig. Therefore it is my belief that there is almost NEVER a party completely innocent here. There is always blame to be found on both sides because it is almost always giant egos fighting with each other. But here, there is never nuance, it is always the woman sucks and the poor man we had a crush on 10 years ago because he was hot in that movie that one time is innocent.

lol at Baldoni being considered a Hollywood power player with "extremely powerful industry connections." Baldoni is backed by a billionaire with no ties to Hollywood. That matters, and is why Blake and Ryan were able to throw around their weight so much. You seem to acknowledge the complicated dynamics here yet are getting so many basic things wrong.

Thanks for the bolded, exactly. While blake attended the film with other cast members, baldoni attended with sony execs. He has a whole production studio with deep deep pockets. I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to further expound upon that.

Yeah, he's so powerful that he was sent to the basement during his own premiere.

The basement with the sony execs? He showed up in a pink suit and posed with his wife this is absurd

https://pagesix.com/2024/08/09/entertainment/justin-baldoni-made-blake-lively-uncomfortable-sources/

At the New York premiere, Baldoni, 40, arrived with his wife, Emily, who has a small role as a doctor in the movie. Lively, meanwhile, posed on the carpet with co-star Brandon Sklenar as well as her husband Reynolds and pal Hugh Jackman.

Sources said Baldoni sat in his one theater at AMC Lincoln Square with family, friends and execs from Sony and Baldoni’s production company, while Lively watched the movie in a different theater with her own guests, including sister Robyn Lively and her nieces and nephews.

What don’t you get? He watched the movie in a different screening room than Blake and the rest of the cast and was sent to the basement after walking the red carpet while Blake and the rest of the cast milled about the theater, for the hour or so before the screenings began.

I get that he watched the movie with the execs, the people with real power in hollywood. And was put in a different location when the rest of the cast walked the carpet, including the author, at their request.

again:

At the New York premiere, Baldoni, 40, arrived with his wife, Emily, who has a small role as a doctor in the movie. Lively, meanwhile, posed on the carpet with co-star Brandon Sklenar as well as her husband Reynolds and pal Hugh Jackman.

Sources said Baldoni sat in his one theater at AMC Lincoln Square with family, friends and execs from Sony and Baldoni’s production company, while Lively watched the movie in a different theater with her own guests, including sister Robyn Lively and her nieces and nephews.