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:

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.

Her best chance to bow out was before he filed her complaint. Once it was clear that he was going to do so and had recorded pretty much everything, she should have done exactly that.

Only they know the truth. Nothing Baldoni has released so far is particularly damning for her case. He has no response at all to many of her allegations, like whether they pressured her to do nudity in the birthing scene or if he repeatedly told her he was communing with her dead father even after she asked him not to. Some of his defenses don't actually vindicate him.

He has not come out with anything that I would say is going to torpedo her legal case. The bigger risk is that he just attacks her in the press long enough that it destroys her reputation. But... that's what was already happening, right? That's what made her sue him in the first place.

So she really doesn't have anything to lose by continuing. She might win her case, and the only way for her to keep fighting back on him trying to trash her in the press is to have the lawsuit.

I wholeheartedly disagree, she has zero credibility left at this point.

ITA. The items in her complaint referencing her negative reputation include footnote cites to Dlisted - which I read for years, and which folded in 2022 or 2023, well before this alleged “bury her” campaign. Blake Lively has had rotten self-created image issues for 10 years if not 15. Her businesses didn’t hit right away because they didn’t attract customers. Someone here keeps calling Justin Baldoni, Jason - he did not orchestrate her low reputation. She did!

I checked the footnotes and they cite the subreddit, which is still active. These were recent comments.

The footnotes include heavy reference to negative nicknames for Lively generated on pop culture sites from many years ago. It is what it is.

[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: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.

Her best chance to bow out was before he filed her complaint. Once it was clear that he was going to do so and had recorded pretty much everything, she should have done exactly that.

Only they know the truth. Nothing Baldoni has released so far is particularly damning for her case. He has no response at all to many of her allegations, like whether they pressured her to do nudity in the birthing scene or if he repeatedly told her he was communing with her dead father even after she asked him not to. Some of his defenses don't actually vindicate him.

He has not come out with anything that I would say is going to torpedo her legal case. The bigger risk is that he just attacks her in the press long enough that it destroys her reputation. But... that's what was already happening, right? That's what made her sue him in the first place.

So she really doesn't have anything to lose by continuing. She might win her case, and the only way for her to keep fighting back on him trying to trash her in the press is to have the lawsuit.

Can someone share if there might be a legal reason why he hasn't responded to these other claims like the dead father? Like is he only responding to the 17-point claims because he actually agreed to them, and ignoring the overall number of 30 because he never saw them?

The deed father is not actionable and doesn’t need to be addressed.

+1. I’d like to file a claim against all my coworkers for annoying me.

[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.

I said above. I worked in this field

[Anonymous]

I’m not saying this is true, but it makes a lot of sense:

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8FogudV/


And if it is true, The NY Times was played.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not saying this is true, but it makes a lot of sense:

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8FogudV/


And if it is true, The NY Times was played.

You know what doesn't make a lot of sense? That lady's eyebrows. Or the concept of a person whose career is to "create content" on TikTok that amounts to mindless speculation based on... random Facebook posts she read?

But sure, yes, the NYT "got played." Let's go with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not saying this is true, but it makes a lot of sense:

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8FogudV/


And if it is true, The NY Times was played.

You know what doesn't make a lot of sense? That lady's eyebrows. Or the concept of a person whose career is to "create content" on TikTok that amounts to mindless speculation based on... random Facebook posts she read?

But sure, yes, the NYT "got played." Let's go with that.

Sorry that you are so easily distracted by appearances. Perhaps you didn’t make it to the articles and interviews she included.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not saying this is true, but it makes a lot of sense:

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8FogudV/


And if it is true, The NY Times was played.

You know what doesn't make a lot of sense? That lady's eyebrows. Or the concept of a person whose career is to "create content" on TikTok that amounts to mindless speculation based on... random Facebook posts she read?

But sure, yes, the NYT "got played." Let's go with that.

The NY Times definitely got played, that’s not really up for debate. But that’s the danger of basing an article on one sources who turns out to be not truthful. Oh well.

[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.

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

Her sense of self and reality seems pretty distorted even under the best of circumstances (interviews meant to pump her up and make her appear amazing!) I've read the complaints and I'm not going to comment on this legally, but she's basically volatile, emotional, and out of touch to an extreme degree when even answering basic questions, so I do question things that made her, "uncomfortable."

[Anonymous]

https://x.com/realmelanieking/status/1884172451934003375

Candace Owen allegedly knew someone that worked on the set. She says Ryan is central to what happened and why Blake freaked out to save the marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not saying this is true, but it makes a lot of sense:

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8FogudV/


And if it is true, The NY Times was played.

You know what doesn't make a lot of sense? That lady's eyebrows. Or the concept of a person whose career is to "create content" on TikTok that amounts to mindless speculation based on... random Facebook posts she read?

But sure, yes, the NYT "got played." Let's go with that.

The NY Times definitely got played, that’s not really up for debate. But that’s the danger of basing an article on one sources who turns out to be not truthful. Oh well.

It's really up for debate. That's the purpose of this thread. Not just to rag on Lively lol. Lots of debate in this thread defending the NYT article as based on factual texts that they cited and printed. Even if they focused on the texts/comms that supported Lively, you can't say those aren't truthful. They're there in black and white, sorry ma'am.

[Anonymous]

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.

I don’t think so. Every sentence out of her month included “according to the complaint.” Apparently nothing was based on independent reporting. I guess we all are suppose to conveniently forget the hours of interviews with Blake mentioned in the original article.

SAG and Sony both expressed support for lively and I think this support is being lost in the “TikTok fever”. SAG support in particular I believe to be significant here and support of distribution is also critical imo.

[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.

Her "my husband wrote this scene!' In he context of "her" takeover was suspect. I think hey are a folie au deux.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://x.com/realmelanieking/status/1884172451934003375

Candace Owen allegedly knew someone that worked on the set. She says Ryan is central to what happened and why Blake freaked out to save the marriage.

You need to stop this. This is how we get shut down.

[Anonymous]

I haven’t really sat through any TikTok commentary because I can’t trust the lawyers on there but I really do like the user @notactuallygolden, she seems pretty level-headed.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8Y1BD4p/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not saying this is true, but it makes a lot of sense:

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8FogudV/


And if it is true, The NY Times was played.

You know what doesn't make a lot of sense? That lady's eyebrows. Or the concept of a person whose career is to "create content" on TikTok that amounts to mindless speculation based on... random Facebook posts she read?

But sure, yes, the NYT "got played." Let's go with that.

The NY Times definitely got played, that’s not really up for debate. But that’s the danger of basing an article on one sources who turns out to be not truthful. Oh well.

It's really up for debate. That's the purpose of this thread. Not just to rag on Lively lol. Lots of debate in this thread defending the NYT article as based on factual texts that they cited and printed. Even if they focused on the texts/comms that supported Lively, you can't say those aren't truthful. They're there in black and white, sorry ma'am.

Actually in the podcast, they acknowledge Justin’s claim that surrounding texts which were not included could give the published texts a different meaning.