Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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.

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

This whole thread exists because some first amendment lawyer did a podcast about the case, and apparently said he could win. Maybe start there.

[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: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.

1. You do need to give people any time to respond. That has nothing to do with a defamation case.
2. 10-15 minutes can be fine to meet the norms.
3. 14 hours is a lot.

[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.

DP and I completely agree. BL seems dim but mean, very invested in instantly accelerating nothings into somethings.

[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.

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.

We’ll see. I think you are wrong. Time will tell. Certainly it won’t be decide on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

She sure does. She should have walked away from this mess after Baldoni filed. I am somewhat convinced by the argument that Reynolds won’t let her back away. They’re insane for this.

[Anonymous]

This all would have blown over without the lawsuits. You'd get your stray person commenting on her Instagram, asking why she sidelined Justin, but people get tired of the negativity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

She sure does. She should have walked away from this mess after Baldoni filed. I am somewhat convinced by the argument that Reynolds won’t let her back away. They’re insane for this.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the Reynolds-Lively house. Are they both having regrets? Is just one of them? Or do they both have a sort of It's-Us-Against-the-World mentality, strengthening their relationship even further?

[Anonymous]

Both of them are so unprofessional. They are both done.

[Anonymous]

Will Blake attend the Super Bowl with Taylor this year again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ 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?

Weinstein got 48 hours. This was highly publicized because Twohey and Kantor wrote a book about reporting that story and the phone call between the Times and Weinstein was later leaked (he threatens them at points, variously denies all allegations but then says stuff like "I'm not a saint," is his typical bullying self). Worth a listen.

But also I can see why this story would get less time. With Weinstein they were laying out decades of allegations from various sources who had been fairly reluctant to come forward initially. Weinstein was immensely powerful in media at the time and if they got any aspect of that story wrong, he would bury them. I also think they felt a very high degree of protection towards their sources, who might have been silenced completely if that story wasn't reported out very carefully.

The Lively/Baldoni thing is really not very similar. Lively was filing a lawsuit, which would 100% have come out eventually anyway even if the Times had not reported it out. The texts were in the lawsuit. It doesn't concern many years of allegations -- it's entirely about late 2022 to mid-to-late 2024. What it alleges is not nearly as serious as what was alleged against Weinstein, who rightly wound up in prison for rape (whereas the worst thing that could happen to Baldoni if the allegations are true is that he could lose a lawsuit and have to pay Lively some money).

I don't think 14 hours is some unconscionable deadline here.

[Anonymous]

I find Blake's claims tenuous, but I really wish Candace Owens hadn't jumped into the fray. Her "inside sources" seem like they're full of shit and their claims don't really align with what we know about the case e.g. claiming this whole conflict originated with Ryan because he was pressuring Blake to do things. I think he played a role, but nothing about these suits suggest Blake was a wallflower.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find Blake's claims tenuous, but I really wish Candace Owens hadn't jumped into the fray. Her "inside sources" seem like they're full of shit and their claims don't really align with what we know about the case e.g. claiming this whole conflict originated with Ryan because he was pressuring Blake to do things. I think he played a role, but nothing about these suits suggest Blake was a wallflower.

She’s not in the fray. She’s theorizing from the sidelines like all of us. It’s not a bad theory; to me at least, her husband putting his gripe (poorly, stupidly) into his superhero movie is definitional being extra.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

She sure does. She should have walked away from this mess after Baldoni filed. I am somewhat convinced by the argument that Reynolds won’t let her back away. They’re insane for this.

I think it's perfectly fair to argue that she should not have escalated the conflict at various points. Like I think depending on what it was really like on set (and no way for me to know), maybe she should have tried harder to just promote the movie normally with Baldoni or not unfollowed him on social media. Maybe she could have worked things out via lawyers after she found out about the PR campaign and gotten a quiet settlement on that instead of filing a lawsuit and going to the NYT. I think it's fair to second guess those choices, though hard to know what I would have done in that situation because I don't have all the facts and maybe never will.

But it's insane to argue that Lively should have "walked away" after Baldoni filed his complaint. Baldoni's complaint and the behavior of his lawyer has been go-for-broke. At that point, she has no choice but to fight back. I'm sure much the way Baldoni felt after the NYT's piece and Lively's complaint came out. One someone shoots across the bow like that, you're in it whether you want to be or not.

[Anonymous]

I just realized the title of this thread refers to him as "Jason" Baldoni and that's hilarious. On the one hand, poor guy isn't even famous enough for people to get his name right while defending him against sexual harassment claims online. On the other hand, maybe he should just lean into it, change his name to Jason, and claim the guy accused of harassment and retaliation is some other actor/director

[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.

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

1. You do need to give people any time to respond. That has nothing to do with a defamation case.
2. 10-15 minutes can be fine to meet the norms.
3. 14 hours is a lot.

Former reporter PP who said 14 hours was fine here and thank you. It's very frustrating to see people on this thread asserting totally insane things about journalistic standards and to try and correct them only to be told "you don't know anything about journalism." Lol. I worked in war zones!