Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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.

How was it telling?

Duh, if they feared losing, they would not publicize it further, now would they?

Obviously not, it would open them up to further damages.

Quite the signal from their lawyers re: strength of case today.

No, I read the transcript. The reporter toed the line and didn’t add anything that wasn’t in the article. It means little

The article came out weeks ago and if the NYT was concerned that their reporting could expose them to liability, they would not then air a podcast regurgitating the article a month later, which if they were genuinely worried about the defamation lawsuit, could expose them to further claims.

I don't think they would have run the podcast today if they had not had their attorneys review the case very closely and determine if there is any way a court could agree they'd done anything wrong here and gotten the all clear. Otherwise it's like rerunning the story in the paper -- you don't do that if you think there might be a problem with it.

I think the NYT (and their no doubt highly paid, top notch first amendment lawyers) is completely confident Baldoni doesn't have a case.

That could be true, yes, but it’s not unheard of for outlets and reporters to double down on shaky reporting. It happens all the time. People get attached to their perspective, and it can be hard to let go.

The NYT lawyers are good, but they’re not infallible.

I don't think you understand what kind of first Amendment lawyers the NYT has on retainer. They will have hired people who clerked for the Supreme Court and have argued before them in the past and can tell them with a high degree of confidence what the likelihood is that this case has legs. They would not risk overturning prior precedent on a piece with shaky reporting or where the plaintiff has a compelling case.

[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:

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.

That doesn't strike me as "astounding." It sounds pretty typical. If a newspaper does a deeply researched piece on your wrongdoing which includes actual text messages they have verified as true, they aren't going to give you days to get ahead of that narrative and undermine their reporting. They are going to give you enough time to respond and then publish.

But in any case, Baldoni actually responded with a statement within just a couple hours, so it turns out that 14 hours was more than enough.

I don't think we know how much time they gave the PR people, actually. It's not like Baldoni lives with Melissa Nathan. Presumably they contacted people separately.

True, we don’t know if the PR people got extra time, but if they did, it seems odd it wasn’t mentioned. At all. In fact it’s not clear to me they got any direct heads up from this interview, just Baldoni, even though they are made to look pretty terrible.

I worked in journalism for awhile, and 14 hours is not a lot of time for a piece that isn’t breaking news and which is so detailed and potentially devastating to various people’s reputations. Weinstein was given far more time, as one example.

And Baldonis lawyer statement is fine, but obviously a blanket statement like that isn’t all that compelling- which the NYT knows- and I’m sure Baldoni and the PR people would have preferred to have more time to provide detail of what parts of the piece were incorrect, and to provide their perspective, which is what a good journalist typically tries to do, especially for something so inherently he said/she said. It’s just strangely lazy reporting from the NYT, and it’s not like Hollywood gossip is their typical beat. Why the rush to go out with this story?

It's not weird they don't mention how much time the PR people got or anything about them because no one actually cares about them. Of course the story focuses on the main characters.

At some point there may be some look into their situation but that's not the main focus of the story. Like according to Lively's complaint, her assistant and others were present for many of the weird and discomforting things that happened with Baldoni and Heath. No one focuses on that though, they focus on Blake Lively because she's famous and they aren't. Same thing.

That’s not entirely accurate in that the difference is these people were made to look horrible. Livelys people are just background

I mean... they are kind of horrible? They are PR people. Melissa Nathan helped Johnny Depp pay armies of online posters to call Amber Heard crazy, unstable, and an abuser. She's not an innocent caught in the crossfire. Her chosen profession is deeply revolting.

Sure, arguably they are not great people, but that doesn’t mean they still don’t deserve a heads up when the f’in NYT runs a hit piece on them.

I'm sure they got one. Are they alleging they didn't? These people are extremely media savvy -- they work in PR at the highest level! I'm sure they were given a chance to comment on the piece and they also have tons of media contacts so if there is an aspect of this story they want to get out, they can. I believe Jennifer Abel's sister works at Page 6? They know people at Variety, Deadline, you name it. In fact I'm sure they've got NYTs reporters on speed dial.

This narrative that these poor PR professionals just had no idea what was about to drop is insane. Of course they knew. They also knew they'd been caught redhanded and their first issue was "how did you get the texts." Not whether they were real -- they knew they were real and damning.

Sure, they’re not totally unsophisticated but PR are not at all used to being the story themselves, and I’m sure it was incredibly unnerving to be taken down like this in the NYT. And again, 14 hours is just not a lot of time especially bc there was no reason I can see that the NYT needed to rush to publish this. Why? Were they worried they’d get scooped by the daily mail ? 🤣

They published December 21, the Saturday before Christmas. Presumably a lot of people were traveling for the holiday. Both people at the Times and sources, including people at the courthouse or the PR people who provided them with the texts. If they give Baldoni a few days to reply, then it's the 23rd or 24th and if he comes back with an elaborate statement making its own allegations, then they have to check all those and get a statement from Lively on that before going to press.

14 hours is not a lot of time but if you want to avoid being the subject of a NYT piece that will destroy your professional reputation, I recommend not engaging in the kinds of activity that Nathan, Abel, and Baldoni were caught engaging in. It's not the NYT's job to give you lots of time to come up with an explanation.

[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:

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.

That doesn't strike me as "astounding." It sounds pretty typical. If a newspaper does a deeply researched piece on your wrongdoing which includes actual text messages they have verified as true, they aren't going to give you days to get ahead of that narrative and undermine their reporting. They are going to give you enough time to respond and then publish.

But in any case, Baldoni actually responded with a statement within just a couple hours, so it turns out that 14 hours was more than enough.

I don't think we know how much time they gave the PR people, actually. It's not like Baldoni lives with Melissa Nathan. Presumably they contacted people separately.

True, we don’t know if the PR people got extra time, but if they did, it seems odd it wasn’t mentioned. At all. In fact it’s not clear to me they got any direct heads up from this interview, just Baldoni, even though they are made to look pretty terrible.

I worked in journalism for awhile, and 14 hours is not a lot of time for a piece that isn’t breaking news and which is so detailed and potentially devastating to various people’s reputations. Weinstein was given far more time, as one example.

And Baldonis lawyer statement is fine, but obviously a blanket statement like that isn’t all that compelling- which the NYT knows- and I’m sure Baldoni and the PR people would have preferred to have more time to provide detail of what parts of the piece were incorrect, and to provide their perspective, which is what a good journalist typically tries to do, especially for something so inherently he said/she said. It’s just strangely lazy reporting from the NYT, and it’s not like Hollywood gossip is their typical beat. Why the rush to go out with this story?

It's not weird they don't mention how much time the PR people got or anything about them because no one actually cares about them. Of course the story focuses on the main characters.

At some point there may be some look into their situation but that's not the main focus of the story. Like according to Lively's complaint, her assistant and others were present for many of the weird and discomforting things that happened with Baldoni and Heath. No one focuses on that though, they focus on Blake Lively because she's famous and they aren't. Same thing.

That’s not entirely accurate in that the difference is these people were made to look horrible. Livelys people are just background

I mean... they are kind of horrible? They are PR people. Melissa Nathan helped Johnny Depp pay armies of online posters to call Amber Heard crazy, unstable, and an abuser. She's not an innocent caught in the crossfire. Her chosen profession is deeply revolting.

Sure, arguably they are not great people, but that doesn’t mean they still don’t deserve a heads up when the f’in NYT runs a hit piece on them.

I'm sure they got one. Are they alleging they didn't? These people are extremely media savvy -- they work in PR at the highest level! I'm sure they were given a chance to comment on the piece and they also have tons of media contacts so if there is an aspect of this story they want to get out, they can. I believe Jennifer Abel's sister works at Page 6? They know people at Variety, Deadline, you name it. In fact I'm sure they've got NYTs reporters on speed dial.

This narrative that these poor PR professionals just had no idea what was about to drop is insane. Of course they knew. They also knew they'd been caught redhanded and their first issue was "how did you get the texts." Not whether they were real -- they knew they were real and damning.

Sure, they’re not totally unsophisticated but PR are not at all used to being the story themselves, and I’m sure it was incredibly unnerving to be taken down like this in the NYT. And again, 14 hours is just not a lot of time especially bc there was no reason I can see that the NYT needed to rush to publish this. Why? Were they worried they’d get scooped by the daily mail ? 🤣

They published December 21, the Saturday before Christmas. Presumably a lot of people were traveling for the holiday. Both people at the Times and sources, including people at the courthouse or the PR people who provided them with the texts. If they give Baldoni a few days to reply, then it's the 23rd or 24th and if he comes back with an elaborate statement making its own allegations, then they have to check all those and get a statement from Lively on that before going to press.

14 hours is not a lot of time but if you want to avoid being the subject of a NYT piece that will destroy your professional reputation, I recommend not engaging in the kinds of activity that Nathan, Abel, and Baldoni were caught engaging in. It's not the NYT's job to give you lots of time to come up with an explanation.

It’s clear you’ve never worked in journalism.

[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:

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.

That doesn't strike me as "astounding." It sounds pretty typical. If a newspaper does a deeply researched piece on your wrongdoing which includes actual text messages they have verified as true, they aren't going to give you days to get ahead of that narrative and undermine their reporting. They are going to give you enough time to respond and then publish.

But in any case, Baldoni actually responded with a statement within just a couple hours, so it turns out that 14 hours was more than enough.

I don't think we know how much time they gave the PR people, actually. It's not like Baldoni lives with Melissa Nathan. Presumably they contacted people separately.

True, we don’t know if the PR people got extra time, but if they did, it seems odd it wasn’t mentioned. At all. In fact it’s not clear to me they got any direct heads up from this interview, just Baldoni, even though they are made to look pretty terrible.

I worked in journalism for awhile, and 14 hours is not a lot of time for a piece that isn’t breaking news and which is so detailed and potentially devastating to various people’s reputations. Weinstein was given far more time, as one example.

And Baldonis lawyer statement is fine, but obviously a blanket statement like that isn’t all that compelling- which the NYT knows- and I’m sure Baldoni and the PR people would have preferred to have more time to provide detail of what parts of the piece were incorrect, and to provide their perspective, which is what a good journalist typically tries to do, especially for something so inherently he said/she said. It’s just strangely lazy reporting from the NYT, and it’s not like Hollywood gossip is their typical beat. Why the rush to go out with this story?

It's not weird they don't mention how much time the PR people got or anything about them because no one actually cares about them. Of course the story focuses on the main characters.

At some point there may be some look into their situation but that's not the main focus of the story. Like according to Lively's complaint, her assistant and others were present for many of the weird and discomforting things that happened with Baldoni and Heath. No one focuses on that though, they focus on Blake Lively because she's famous and they aren't. Same thing.

And you glossed over the main point. 14 hours is not a lot of time for a piece like this. Not for a story like this.

It is a normal amount of time. It's a full day, or overnight if the request for comment comes in the evening. Normal.

Not for this sort of detailed piece by the woman who broke a #metoo story, it’s not. You can keep saying it is, but I get the sense you have never worked in publishing or media.

Ok, try me -- what is the standard amount of time an outlet gives someone to provide comment on a #metoo type story? Be specific and provide examples.

I was a reporter for an international news agency for over a decade. This is a perfectly normal amount of time for a story like this. The thing is, the NYT already had verification of the texts so that aspect of the story was nailed down -- they weren't looking for Baldoni or Abel or Nathan to confirm the texts were real. They knew they were. The rest of the story was just "actress Blake Lively has filed a complaint against these people, here's what the complaint says." There is nothing there that would justify giving more than 12-14 hours for Baldoni and company to issue a comment. It's not like they were reporting on the Pentagon Papers here. It's not that deep.

[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.

How was it telling?

Duh, if they feared losing, they would not publicize it further, now would they?

Obviously not, it would open them up to further damages.

Quite the signal from their lawyers re: strength of case today.

No, I read the transcript. The reporter toed the line and didn’t add anything that wasn’t in the article. It means little

The article came out weeks ago and if the NYT was concerned that their reporting could expose them to liability, they would not then air a podcast regurgitating the article a month later, which if they were genuinely worried about the defamation lawsuit, could expose them to further claims.

I don't think they would have run the podcast today if they had not had their attorneys review the case very closely and determine if there is any way a court could agree they'd done anything wrong here and gotten the all clear. Otherwise it's like rerunning the story in the paper -- you don't do that if you think there might be a problem with it.

I think the NYT (and their no doubt highly paid, top notch first amendment lawyers) is completely confident Baldoni doesn't have a case.

That could be true, yes, but it’s not unheard of for outlets and reporters to double down on shaky reporting. It happens all the time. People get attached to their perspective, and it can be hard to let go.

The NYT lawyers are good, but they’re not infallible.

I don't think you understand what kind of first Amendment lawyers the NYT has on retainer. They will have hired people who clerked for the Supreme Court and have argued before them in the past and can tell them with a high degree of confidence what the likelihood is that this case has legs. They would not risk overturning prior precedent on a piece with shaky reporting or where the plaintiff has a compelling case.

Sorry, what is your specific knowledge on this? I do have some knowledge of the inner workings and yes, DM who is their DGC and who oversees litigation and vetting, is excellent, but not infallible. And their outside firms that I know of are also very good, but again, not infallible.

[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:

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.

That doesn't strike me as "astounding." It sounds pretty typical. If a newspaper does a deeply researched piece on your wrongdoing which includes actual text messages they have verified as true, they aren't going to give you days to get ahead of that narrative and undermine their reporting. They are going to give you enough time to respond and then publish.

But in any case, Baldoni actually responded with a statement within just a couple hours, so it turns out that 14 hours was more than enough.

I don't think we know how much time they gave the PR people, actually. It's not like Baldoni lives with Melissa Nathan. Presumably they contacted people separately.

True, we don’t know if the PR people got extra time, but if they did, it seems odd it wasn’t mentioned. At all. In fact it’s not clear to me they got any direct heads up from this interview, just Baldoni, even though they are made to look pretty terrible.

I worked in journalism for awhile, and 14 hours is not a lot of time for a piece that isn’t breaking news and which is so detailed and potentially devastating to various people’s reputations. Weinstein was given far more time, as one example.

And Baldonis lawyer statement is fine, but obviously a blanket statement like that isn’t all that compelling- which the NYT knows- and I’m sure Baldoni and the PR people would have preferred to have more time to provide detail of what parts of the piece were incorrect, and to provide their perspective, which is what a good journalist typically tries to do, especially for something so inherently he said/she said. It’s just strangely lazy reporting from the NYT, and it’s not like Hollywood gossip is their typical beat. Why the rush to go out with this story?

It's not weird they don't mention how much time the PR people got or anything about them because no one actually cares about them. Of course the story focuses on the main characters.

At some point there may be some look into their situation but that's not the main focus of the story. Like according to Lively's complaint, her assistant and others were present for many of the weird and discomforting things that happened with Baldoni and Heath. No one focuses on that though, they focus on Blake Lively because she's famous and they aren't. Same thing.

And you glossed over the main point. 14 hours is not a lot of time for a piece like this. Not for a story like this.

It is a normal amount of time. It's a full day, or overnight if the request for comment comes in the evening. Normal.

Not for this sort of detailed piece by the woman who broke a #metoo story, it’s not. You can keep saying it is, but I get the sense you have never worked in publishing or media.

Ok, try me -- what is the standard amount of time an outlet gives someone to provide comment on a #metoo type story? Be specific and provide examples.

I was a reporter for an international news agency for over a decade. This is a perfectly normal amount of time for a story like this. The thing is, the NYT already had verification of the texts so that aspect of the story was nailed down -- they weren't looking for Baldoni or Abel or Nathan to confirm the texts were real. They knew they were. The rest of the story was just "actress Blake Lively has filed a complaint against these people, here's what the complaint says." There is nothing there that would justify giving more than 12-14 hours for Baldoni and company to issue a comment. It's not like they were reporting on the Pentagon Papers here. It's not that deep.

What sort of news stories? My point is that 14 hours is fine for something more discrete and for breaking news, but this has a fairly opaque he said/she said element and that’s just not a lot of time.

[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:

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.

That doesn't strike me as "astounding." It sounds pretty typical. If a newspaper does a deeply researched piece on your wrongdoing which includes actual text messages they have verified as true, they aren't going to give you days to get ahead of that narrative and undermine their reporting. They are going to give you enough time to respond and then publish.

But in any case, Baldoni actually responded with a statement within just a couple hours, so it turns out that 14 hours was more than enough.

I don't think we know how much time they gave the PR people, actually. It's not like Baldoni lives with Melissa Nathan. Presumably they contacted people separately.

True, we don’t know if the PR people got extra time, but if they did, it seems odd it wasn’t mentioned. At all. In fact it’s not clear to me they got any direct heads up from this interview, just Baldoni, even though they are made to look pretty terrible.

I worked in journalism for awhile, and 14 hours is not a lot of time for a piece that isn’t breaking news and which is so detailed and potentially devastating to various people’s reputations. Weinstein was given far more time, as one example.

And Baldonis lawyer statement is fine, but obviously a blanket statement like that isn’t all that compelling- which the NYT knows- and I’m sure Baldoni and the PR people would have preferred to have more time to provide detail of what parts of the piece were incorrect, and to provide their perspective, which is what a good journalist typically tries to do, especially for something so inherently he said/she said. It’s just strangely lazy reporting from the NYT, and it’s not like Hollywood gossip is their typical beat. Why the rush to go out with this story?

It's not weird they don't mention how much time the PR people got or anything about them because no one actually cares about them. Of course the story focuses on the main characters.

At some point there may be some look into their situation but that's not the main focus of the story. Like according to Lively's complaint, her assistant and others were present for many of the weird and discomforting things that happened with Baldoni and Heath. No one focuses on that though, they focus on Blake Lively because she's famous and they aren't. Same thing.

And you glossed over the main point. 14 hours is not a lot of time for a piece like this. Not for a story like this.

It is a normal amount of time. It's a full day, or overnight if the request for comment comes in the evening. Normal.

Not for this sort of detailed piece by the woman who broke a #metoo story, it’s not. You can keep saying it is, but I get the sense you have never worked in publishing or media.

Ok, try me -- what is the standard amount of time an outlet gives someone to provide comment on a #metoo type story? Be specific and provide examples.

I was a reporter for an international news agency for over a decade. This is a perfectly normal amount of time for a story like this. The thing is, the NYT already had verification of the texts so that aspect of the story was nailed down -- they weren't looking for Baldoni or Abel or Nathan to confirm the texts were real. They knew they were. The rest of the story was just "actress Blake Lively has filed a complaint against these people, here's what the complaint says." There is nothing there that would justify giving more than 12-14 hours for Baldoni and company to issue a comment. It's not like they were reporting on the Pentagon Papers here. It's not that deep.

What sort of news stories? My point is that 14 hours is fine for something more discrete and for breaking news, but this has a fairly opaque he said/she said element and that’s just not a lot of time.

They also said the piece was based on interviews with Blake, and it is not a straightforward retelling of the complaint, which is why not interviewing Justin or giving more time for comment is unusual.

[Anonymous]

^ and if it was a piece that was coming together over a period of time- which it sounds like this way- and with many debatable elements like this one- we’d provide at least a few days. You really think Weinstein only got 14 hours notice before the first article ran?

[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:

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.

That doesn't strike me as "astounding." It sounds pretty typical. If a newspaper does a deeply researched piece on your wrongdoing which includes actual text messages they have verified as true, they aren't going to give you days to get ahead of that narrative and undermine their reporting. They are going to give you enough time to respond and then publish.

But in any case, Baldoni actually responded with a statement within just a couple hours, so it turns out that 14 hours was more than enough.

I don't think we know how much time they gave the PR people, actually. It's not like Baldoni lives with Melissa Nathan. Presumably they contacted people separately.

True, we don’t know if the PR people got extra time, but if they did, it seems odd it wasn’t mentioned. At all. In fact it’s not clear to me they got any direct heads up from this interview, just Baldoni, even though they are made to look pretty terrible.

I worked in journalism for awhile, and 14 hours is not a lot of time for a piece that isn’t breaking news and which is so detailed and potentially devastating to various people’s reputations. Weinstein was given far more time, as one example.

And Baldonis lawyer statement is fine, but obviously a blanket statement like that isn’t all that compelling- which the NYT knows- and I’m sure Baldoni and the PR people would have preferred to have more time to provide detail of what parts of the piece were incorrect, and to provide their perspective, which is what a good journalist typically tries to do, especially for something so inherently he said/she said. It’s just strangely lazy reporting from the NYT, and it’s not like Hollywood gossip is their typical beat. Why the rush to go out with this story?

It's not weird they don't mention how much time the PR people got or anything about them because no one actually cares about them. Of course the story focuses on the main characters.

At some point there may be some look into their situation but that's not the main focus of the story. Like according to Lively's complaint, her assistant and others were present for many of the weird and discomforting things that happened with Baldoni and Heath. No one focuses on that though, they focus on Blake Lively because she's famous and they aren't. Same thing.

And you glossed over the main point. 14 hours is not a lot of time for a piece like this. Not for a story like this.

It is a normal amount of time. It's a full day, or overnight if the request for comment comes in the evening. Normal.

Not for this sort of detailed piece by the woman who broke a #metoo story, it’s not. You can keep saying it is, but I get the sense you have never worked in publishing or media.

Ok, try me -- what is the standard amount of time an outlet gives someone to provide comment on a #metoo type story? Be specific and provide examples.

I was a reporter for an international news agency for over a decade. This is a perfectly normal amount of time for a story like this. The thing is, the NYT already had verification of the texts so that aspect of the story was nailed down -- they weren't looking for Baldoni or Abel or Nathan to confirm the texts were real. They knew they were. The rest of the story was just "actress Blake Lively has filed a complaint against these people, here's what the complaint says." There is nothing there that would justify giving more than 12-14 hours for Baldoni and company to issue a comment. It's not like they were reporting on the Pentagon Papers here. It's not that deep.

What sort of news stories? My point is that 14 hours is fine for something more discrete and for breaking news, but this has a fairly opaque he said/she said element and that’s just not a lot of time.

They also said the piece was based on interviews with Blake, and it is not a straightforward retelling of the complaint, which is why not interviewing Justin or giving more time for comment is unusual.

Well that works against them from a defamation perspective bc sticking to the complaint would have been much safer for them legally.

[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:

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.

That doesn't strike me as "astounding." It sounds pretty typical. If a newspaper does a deeply researched piece on your wrongdoing which includes actual text messages they have verified as true, they aren't going to give you days to get ahead of that narrative and undermine their reporting. They are going to give you enough time to respond and then publish.

But in any case, Baldoni actually responded with a statement within just a couple hours, so it turns out that 14 hours was more than enough.

I don't think we know how much time they gave the PR people, actually. It's not like Baldoni lives with Melissa Nathan. Presumably they contacted people separately.

True, we don’t know if the PR people got extra time, but if they did, it seems odd it wasn’t mentioned. At all. In fact it’s not clear to me they got any direct heads up from this interview, just Baldoni, even though they are made to look pretty terrible.

I worked in journalism for awhile, and 14 hours is not a lot of time for a piece that isn’t breaking news and which is so detailed and potentially devastating to various people’s reputations. Weinstein was given far more time, as one example.

And Baldonis lawyer statement is fine, but obviously a blanket statement like that isn’t all that compelling- which the NYT knows- and I’m sure Baldoni and the PR people would have preferred to have more time to provide detail of what parts of the piece were incorrect, and to provide their perspective, which is what a good journalist typically tries to do, especially for something so inherently he said/she said. It’s just strangely lazy reporting from the NYT, and it’s not like Hollywood gossip is their typical beat. Why the rush to go out with this story?

It's not weird they don't mention how much time the PR people got or anything about them because no one actually cares about them. Of course the story focuses on the main characters.

At some point there may be some look into their situation but that's not the main focus of the story. Like according to Lively's complaint, her assistant and others were present for many of the weird and discomforting things that happened with Baldoni and Heath. No one focuses on that though, they focus on Blake Lively because she's famous and they aren't. Same thing.

That’s not entirely accurate in that the difference is these people were made to look horrible. Livelys people are just background

I mean... they are kind of horrible? They are PR people. Melissa Nathan helped Johnny Depp pay armies of online posters to call Amber Heard crazy, unstable, and an abuser. She's not an innocent caught in the crossfire. Her chosen profession is deeply revolting.

Sure, arguably they are not great people, but that doesn’t mean they still don’t deserve a heads up when the f’in NYT runs a hit piece on them.

I'm sure they got one. Are they alleging they didn't? These people are extremely media savvy -- they work in PR at the highest level! I'm sure they were given a chance to comment on the piece and they also have tons of media contacts so if there is an aspect of this story they want to get out, they can. I believe Jennifer Abel's sister works at Page 6? They know people at Variety, Deadline, you name it. In fact I'm sure they've got NYTs reporters on speed dial.

This narrative that these poor PR professionals just had no idea what was about to drop is insane. Of course they knew. They also knew they'd been caught redhanded and their first issue was "how did you get the texts." Not whether they were real -- they knew they were real and damning.

Sure, they’re not totally unsophisticated but PR are not at all used to being the story themselves, and I’m sure it was incredibly unnerving to be taken down like this in the NYT. And again, 14 hours is just not a lot of time especially bc there was no reason I can see that the NYT needed to rush to publish this. Why? Were they worried they’d get scooped by the daily mail ? 🤣

They published December 21, the Saturday before Christmas. Presumably a lot of people were traveling for the holiday. Both people at the Times and sources, including people at the courthouse or the PR people who provided them with the texts. If they give Baldoni a few days to reply, then it's the 23rd or 24th and if he comes back with an elaborate statement making its own allegations, then they have to check all those and get a statement from Lively on that before going to press.

14 hours is not a lot of time but if you want to avoid being the subject of a NYT piece that will destroy your professional reputation, I recommend not engaging in the kinds of activity that Nathan, Abel, and Baldoni were caught engaging in. It's not the NYT's job to give you lots of time to come up with an explanation.l

Huh? Um, that is EXACTLY what an investigative journalist is supposed to do. Get a full picture, not just one side’s take.

[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.

How was it telling?

Duh, if they feared losing, they would not publicize it further, now would they?

Obviously not, it would open them up to further damages.

Quite the signal from their lawyers re: strength of case today.

No, I read the transcript. The reporter toed the line and didn’t add anything that wasn’t in the article. It means little

The article came out weeks ago and if the NYT was concerned that their reporting could expose them to liability, they would not then air a podcast regurgitating the article a month later, which if they were genuinely worried about the defamation lawsuit, could expose them to further claims.

I don't think they would have run the podcast today if they had not had their attorneys review the case very closely and determine if there is any way a court could agree they'd done anything wrong here and gotten the all clear. Otherwise it's like rerunning the story in the paper -- you don't do that if you think there might be a problem with it.

I think the NYT (and their no doubt highly paid, top notch first amendment lawyers) is completely confident Baldoni doesn't have a case.

That could be true, yes, but it’s not unheard of for outlets and reporters to double down on shaky reporting. It happens all the time. People get attached to their perspective, and it can be hard to let go.

The NYT lawyers are good, but they’re not infallible.

I don't think you understand what kind of first Amendment lawyers the NYT has on retainer. They will have hired people who clerked for the Supreme Court and have argued before them in the past and can tell them with a high degree of confidence what the likelihood is that this case has legs. They would not risk overturning prior precedent on a piece with shaky reporting or where the plaintiff has a compelling case.

Sorry, what is your specific knowledge on this? I do have some knowledge of the inner workings and yes, DM who is their DGC and who oversees litigation and vetting, is excellent, but not infallible. And their outside firms that I know of are also very good, but again, not infallible.

I’m still waiting. What’s your knowledge here? This piece was not vetted by any outside law firm, I would assume. They have in house lawyers for that. But yes, they’ve likely engaged their outside media counsel at this point.

[Anonymous]

Have Blake and Ryan yet fired the lawyers, MBAs, and PR airheads who war-gamed this scheme which is backfiring into their faces and destroying their careers?

Two ego maniac dummies talked into this by educated seasoned professionals.

I safely assume they wish this would all just go away at this point. What a massive unforced error. Oops!

[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.

How was it telling?

Duh, if they feared losing, they would not publicize it further, now would they?

Obviously not, it would open them up to further damages.

Quite the signal from their lawyers re: strength of case today.

No, I read the transcript. The reporter toed the line and didn’t add anything that wasn’t in the article. It means little

The article came out weeks ago and if the NYT was concerned that their reporting could expose them to liability, they would not then air a podcast regurgitating the article a month later, which if they were genuinely worried about the defamation lawsuit, could expose them to further claims.

I don't think they would have run the podcast today if they had not had their attorneys review the case very closely and determine if there is any way a court could agree they'd done anything wrong here and gotten the all clear. Otherwise it's like rerunning the story in the paper -- you don't do that if you think there might be a problem with it.

I think the NYT (and their no doubt highly paid, top notch first amendment lawyers) is completely confident Baldoni doesn't have a case.

That could be true, yes, but it’s not unheard of for outlets and reporters to double down on shaky reporting. It happens all the time. People get attached to their perspective, and it can be hard to let go.

The NYT lawyers are good, but they’re not infallible.

I don't think you understand what kind of first Amendment lawyers the NYT has on retainer. They will have hired people who clerked for the Supreme Court and have argued before them in the past and can tell them with a high degree of confidence what the likelihood is that this case has legs. They would not risk overturning prior precedent on a piece with shaky reporting or where the plaintiff has a compelling case.

Sorry, what is your specific knowledge on this? I do have some knowledge of the inner workings and yes, DM who is their DGC and who oversees litigation and vetting, is excellent, but not infallible. And their outside firms that I know of are also very good, but again, not infallible.

I’m still waiting. What’s your knowledge here? This piece was not vetted by any outside law firm, I would assume. They have in house lawyers for that. But yes, they’ve likely engaged their outside media counsel at this point.

Good lord, you have a post from someone who worked as a reporter for an international news agency for over a decade just above this saying 14 hours is normal for a piece like this, and now you’re pestering *this* person for personal info. You’re not the king of this thread. What is YOUR specific knowledge? And how about answering PP’s question re what is the standard amount of time an outlet gives someone e to comment on a #metoo type story? Be specific and provide examples. Sheesh.

[Anonymous]

I really would prefer the NYT not lose this lawsuit, given everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How was it telling?

Duh, if they feared losing, they would not publicize it further, now would they?

Obviously not, it would open them up to further damages.

Quite the signal from their lawyers re: strength of case today.

No, I read the transcript. The reporter toed the line and didn’t add anything that wasn’t in the article. It means little

The article came out weeks ago and if the NYT was concerned that their reporting could expose them to liability, they would not then air a podcast regurgitating the article a month later, which if they were genuinely worried about the defamation lawsuit, could expose them to further claims.

I don't think they would have run the podcast today if they had not had their attorneys review the case very closely and determine if there is any way a court could agree they'd done anything wrong here and gotten the all clear. Otherwise it's like rerunning the story in the paper -- you don't do that if you think there might be a problem with it.

I think the NYT (and their no doubt highly paid, top notch first amendment lawyers) is completely confident Baldoni doesn't have a case.

That could be true, yes, but it’s not unheard of for outlets and reporters to double down on shaky reporting. It happens all the time. People get attached to their perspective, and it can be hard to let go.

The NYT lawyers are good, but they’re not infallible.

I don't think you understand what kind of first Amendment lawyers the NYT has on retainer. They will have hired people who clerked for the Supreme Court and have argued before them in the past and can tell them with a high degree of confidence what the likelihood is that this case has legs. They would not risk overturning prior precedent on a piece with shaky reporting or where the plaintiff has a compelling case.

Sorry, what is your specific knowledge on this? I do have some knowledge of the inner workings and yes, DM who is their DGC and who oversees litigation and vetting, is excellent, but not infallible. And their outside firms that I know of are also very good, but again, not infallible.

I’m still waiting. What’s your knowledge here? This piece was not vetted by any outside law firm, I would assume. They have in house lawyers for that. But yes, they’ve likely engaged their outside media counsel at this point.

Good lord, you have a post from someone who worked as a reporter for an international news agency for over a decade just above this saying 14 hours is normal for a piece like this, and now you’re pestering *this* person for personal info. You’re not the king of this thread. What is YOUR specific knowledge? And how about answering PP’s question re what is the standard amount of time an outlet gives someone e to comment on a #metoo type story? Be specific and provide examples. Sheesh.

DP- this is an anonymous message board. We can say anything about our careers. This isn’t the kind of breaking news that couldn’t have waited a couple days, particularly if they were the ones speaking with Lively.

I listened to the Daily this morning. I found it incredibly disappointing- this is a news story because the public could be manipulated if it happens to 2 C-list actors? Maybe it happens with politicians? Hello, did she pay attention to the 2016 elections?