Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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!

This comment and the one before it are just gross — someone posting their 🤮

This sort of thing is what sounds like PR people posting to infect popular opinion, and that’s why I object to it. Also it’s stuff like this that got prior threads closed.

Someone who was posting stuff like this said why not, in light of the Bezos girlfriend threads. I don’t read those, but if I did I’d object to that too. Post your 🤮 🤮 🤮 somewhere else. It doesn’t belong here. Last time you insisted on it the thread closed, so if this thread is so important to you, DO BETTER.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!

This comment and the one before it are just gross — someone posting their 🤮

This sort of thing is what sounds like PR people posting to infect popular opinion, and that’s why I object to it. Also it’s stuff like this that got prior threads closed.

Someone who was posting stuff like this said why not, in light of the Bezos girlfriend threads. I don’t read those, but if I did I’d object to that too. Post your 🤮 🤮 🤮 somewhere else. It doesn’t belong here. Last time you insisted on it the thread closed, so if this thread is so important to you, DO BETTER.

DP

My opinion of BL is based on her interviews. I hadn’t given this much thought about any of this until the NYT article. Now I think she’s a jerk who lies. You can’t blame that on Baldoni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!

This comment and the one before it are just gross — someone posting their 🤮

This sort of thing is what sounds like PR people posting to infect popular opinion, and that’s why I object to it. Also it’s stuff like this that got prior threads closed.

Someone who was posting stuff like this said why not, in light of the Bezos girlfriend threads. I don’t read those, but if I did I’d object to that too. Post your 🤮 🤮 🤮 somewhere else. It doesn’t belong here. Last time you insisted on it the thread closed, so if this thread is so important to you, DO BETTER.

DP

My opinion of BL is based on her interviews. I hadn’t given this much thought about any of this until the NYT article. Now I think she’s a jerk who lies. You can’t blame that on Baldoni.

One theme I have seen with her in a few of those interviews that is interesting in light of this lawsuit, is that several times she is asked a fairly innocuous question by an interviewer and she has the most twisted interpretation of the intent that was meant. Like, almost out of touch with reality reaction to the person sitting there as if she has no idea how people generally communicate. She brings the tone from like a 5 to a 100 and goes after the person FAST, but not in a particularly sharp way. But it's like it is her default to jump to being seriously offended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!

This comment and the one before it are just gross — someone posting their 🤮

This sort of thing is what sounds like PR people posting to infect popular opinion, and that’s why I object to it. Also it’s stuff like this that got prior threads closed.

Someone who was posting stuff like this said why not, in light of the Bezos girlfriend threads. I don’t read those, but if I did I’d object to that too. Post your 🤮 🤮 🤮 somewhere else. It doesn’t belong here. Last time you insisted on it the thread closed, so if this thread is so important to you, DO BETTER.

DP

My opinion of BL is based on her interviews. I hadn’t given this much thought about any of this until the NYT article. Now I think she’s a jerk who lies. You can’t blame that on Baldoni.

One theme I have seen with her in a few of those interviews that is interesting in light of this lawsuit, is that several times she is asked a fairly innocuous question by an interviewer and she has the most twisted interpretation of the intent that was meant. Like, almost out of touch with reality reaction to the person sitting there as if she has no idea how people generally communicate. She brings the tone from like a 5 to a 100 and goes after the person FAST, but not in a particularly sharp way. But it's like it is her default to jump to being seriously offended.

(Meaning to say, I don't even know that she per se, but her version of the truth and interpretation of others' communication does seem to be frequently pretty warped...)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!

This comment and the one before it are just gross — someone posting their 🤮

This sort of thing is what sounds like PR people posting to infect popular opinion, and that’s why I object to it. Also it’s stuff like this that got prior threads closed.

Someone who was posting stuff like this said why not, in light of the Bezos girlfriend threads. I don’t read those, but if I did I’d object to that too. Post your 🤮 🤮 🤮 somewhere else. It doesn’t belong here. Last time you insisted on it the thread closed, so if this thread is so important to you, DO BETTER.

DP

My opinion of BL is based on her interviews. I hadn’t given this much thought about any of this until the NYT article. Now I think she’s a jerk who lies. You can’t blame that on Baldoni.

One theme I have seen with her in a few of those interviews that is interesting in light of this lawsuit, is that several times she is asked a fairly innocuous question by an interviewer and she has the most twisted interpretation of the intent that was meant. Like, almost out of touch with reality reaction to the person sitting there as if she has no idea how people generally communicate. She brings the tone from like a 5 to a 100 and goes after the person FAST, but not in a particularly sharp way. But it's like it is her default to jump to being seriously offended.

(Meaning to say, I don't even know that she per se, but her version of the truth and interpretation of others' communication does seem to be frequently pretty warped...)

* that she lies

[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: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.

Sure it is. the NYTimes doesn’t give people weeks to respond.

[Anonymous]

I feel like Blake and Ryan’s people are working overtime shutting down the bad press, including random people on Tik tok, etc. I get that’s their job, but also we regular folk are entitled to have and express our opinions.

[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 feel pretty comfortable that the NYTimes has the best 1A lawyers available.

[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.

We don’t know what is going on behind the scenes. Having read the article and listened to the podcast, it seems to be the NYTimes is now trying to cast it as “we just relied on the four corners of the complaint” which was not at all how the article was written.

No lawyers can predict with a high degree of certainty what a fact finder, whether it be a judge or jury, will do. We’ll most have to wait and see how it plays out.

[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:

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.

You think the NYTimes gives people days to comment on a story like this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!

This comment and the one before it are just gross — someone posting their 🤮

This sort of thing is what sounds like PR people posting to infect popular opinion, and that’s why I object to it. Also it’s stuff like this that got prior threads closed.

Someone who was posting stuff like this said why not, in light of the Bezos girlfriend threads. I don’t read those, but if I did I’d object to that too. Post your 🤮 🤮 🤮 somewhere else. It doesn’t belong here. Last time you insisted on it the thread closed, so if this thread is so important to you, DO BETTER.

?? Calm down.

[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.

We don’t know what is going on behind the scenes. Having read the article and listened to the podcast, it seems to be the NYTimes is now trying to cast it as “we just relied on the four corners of the complaint” which was not at all how the article was written.

No lawyers can predict with a high degree of certainty what a fact finder, whether it be a judge or jury, will do. We’ll most have to wait and see how it plays out.

Nobody can predict and no lawyer is infallible… but plenty of knowledge people don’t think it’s likely he wins. Maybe you can post a link to someone who thinks it’s a strong case? again the best parallel is Sarah Palin and he cannot even get close to that. this isn’t the lottery - it’s knowable jurisprudence b

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like Blake and Ryan’s people are working overtime shutting down the bad press, including random people on Tik tok, etc. I get that’s their job, but also we regular folk are entitled to have and express our opinions.

They’re on tilt. The next people sued should be all the idiot grifters who talked Blake and Ryan into this.

[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:

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.

You think the NYTimes gives people days to comment on a story like this?

Dp, but if I was the reporter, I would have at least requested interviews with both Justin and the pr people and probably some cast/crew members as well, otherwise it is not remotely close to being “meticulously reported.” As someone else said up thread, this article was multiple times the length of a standard article and appeared on the front page of a section. And if I worked in house at The NY Times I would have insisted on this, as it was clear the article would be devastating for multiple people. My guess is that they erred by giving Twomey a lot of leeway since she is one of their “stars.” Not the first time tha has been an issue for them.

Also, The NY Times is far from infallible, they have had some big misses in recent years, especially with respect to their political coverage.

[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.

We don’t know what is going on behind the scenes. Having read the article and listened to the podcast, it seems to be the NYTimes is now trying to cast it as “we just relied on the four corners of the complaint” which was not at all how the article was written.

No lawyers can predict with a high degree of certainty what a fact finder, whether it be a judge or jury, will do. We’ll most have to wait and see how it plays out.

There will be no fact finder. This does not amount to a claim and will likely be dismissed. It will not play out.