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: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.

You do understand that communing with her dead father is not sexual harassment, right?

[Anonymous]

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.

You do understand that communing with her dead father is not sexual harassment, right?

I also think, regarding some of the SH allegations that he hasn’t defended, it’s his word against hers. He’s only released texts/video, not he said/she said stuff.

I can almost guarantee he did bring up his porn addiction, as I think that’s something he talks about a lot as forming his current feminist personality (genuine or not)—but I’m more skeptical of how she framed the other claims (in the worst possible light versus what was perhaps intended, sorts like the “it so smells good” thing). But I think maybe there are witnesses for those who can be deposed.

But I think they did both cross boundaries, though, and for that he will probably pay. If he is a feminist, as he claims, hopefully he learns some lessons about promoting a professional workplace. It’s not group therapy; it’s a work place.

[Anonymous]

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

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

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

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

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

Quoted for truth. Why do the women of DCUM have such a deep need to talk sh!t about Blake Lively that that 24 hours after the last thread closed was too long to wait for a new one? It’s weird. It’s disguised as “oh there are such interesting legal issues” but then half of the comments are just very personal speculation about what’s wrong with her personality or marriage or whatever. There must be studies on why some women get gratification from this, because PP is right that these kinds of threads are invariably about women. Examine you ingrained misogyny, indeed.

[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.

You do understand that communing with her dead father is not sexual harassment, right?

I also think, regarding some of the SH allegations that he hasn’t defended, it’s his word against hers. He’s only released texts/video, not he said/she said stuff.

I can almost guarantee he did bring up his porn addiction, as I think that’s something he talks about a lot as forming his current feminist personality (genuine or not)—but I’m more skeptical of how she framed the other claims (in the worst possible light versus what was perhaps intended, sorts like the “it so smells good” thing). But I think maybe there are witnesses for those who can be deposed.

But I think they did both cross boundaries, though, and for that he will probably pay. If he is a feminist, as he claims, hopefully he learns some lessons about promoting a professional workplace. It’s not group therapy; it’s a work place.

He did talk about his porn addiction in his complaint. He didn't intend to make her uncomfortable but obviously not appropriate. I think in the end he and Blake will settle but his career was damaged in the midst. Blake and Ryan weren't expecting their careers to take a hit but they have forever tainted their reputation. She should've never misconstrued details.

[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.

Agreed. There's really no excuse for how poorly NYT handled the situation. Megan Twohey lost major credibility with this. Not to mention she recently did a podcast where she just doubled down on the lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Quoted for truth. Why do the women of DCUM have such a deep need to talk sh!t about Blake Lively that that 24 hours after the last thread closed was too long to wait for a new one? It’s weird. It’s disguised as “oh there are such interesting legal issues” but then half of the comments are just very personal speculation about what’s wrong with her personality or marriage or whatever. There must be studies on why some women get gratification from this, because PP is right that these kinds of threads are invariably about women. Examine you ingrained misogyny, indeed.

Go away. You are obvious and tiring

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Quoted for truth. Why do the women of DCUM have such a deep need to talk sh!t about Blake Lively that that 24 hours after the last thread closed was too long to wait for a new one? It’s weird. It’s disguised as “oh there are such interesting legal issues” but then half of the comments are just very personal speculation about what’s wrong with her personality or marriage or whatever. There must be studies on why some women get gratification from this, because PP is right that these kinds of threads are invariably about women. Examine you ingrained misogyny, indeed.

Go away. You are obvious and tiring

Right? talk about misogyny. any woman with an opinion different from yours must just be a crazy woman-hating b.

[Anonymous]

Please ignore the combative poster, we all know who she is. She is just trying to bait people and get this thread locked also.

[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.

Agreed. There's really no excuse for how poorly NYT handled the situation. Megan Twohey lost major credibility with this. Not to mention she recently did a podcast where she just doubled down on the lies.

I’m one of the posters who has vigorously argued that the defamation case is weak. but yeah, I’m surprised the NYTimes has still not learned that reporting on one side of the he-said she-said story is likely to be incredibly poor journalism. if the claim is they are just reporting on the complaint as filed, what’s the point of that? Hardly suits the NYTimes reputation. I don’t think this story was or is worth NYTimes attention unless it can be framed more broadly to be about the evolution of Hollywood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agreed. There's really no excuse for how poorly NYT handled the situation. Megan Twohey lost major credibility with this. Not to mention she recently did a podcast where she just doubled down on the lies.

I’m one of the posters who has vigorously argued that the defamation case is weak. but yeah, I’m surprised the NYTimes has still not learned that reporting on one side of the he-said she-said story is likely to be incredibly poor journalism. if the claim is they are just reporting on the complaint as filed, what’s the point of that? Hardly suits the NYTimes reputation. I don’t think this story was or is worth NYTimes attention unless it can be framed more broadly to be about the evolution of Hollywood.

Dp and I agree. Also, there is a difference between really bad journalism, I.e. relying on only one source and being misled and what is actionable under defamation, etc …. I think most of us can agree that the Times article was the former but it is difficult to win a defamation case so that is more unclear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Did they say why they didn’t include them?

[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.

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!

Dp. I’m someone who challenged you earlier and your experience makes sense, and why you don’t seem to be understanding why this was a journalistic failure. This is so different than war zone breaking news coverage. This was a long article - more like a feature- that would likely decimate multiple people’s careers- including several who are arguably private individuals- and the NYT basically ran it from the perspective of one person - a single source he said/she said story is just very risky. I’m sure they told themselves that they are safe bc it’s from her complaint - that provides protection as a ‘fair report’ of legal proceedings- but the fact is they clearly worked with BL and didn’t seem to seek any other perspective, and they seemed to rush to publish this even though it was hardly typical breaking news for the NYT. Single source stories are legally risky, why would they risk that over some B/C list celebrity squabble? I don’t get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agreed. There's really no excuse for how poorly NYT handled the situation. Megan Twohey lost major credibility with this. Not to mention she recently did a podcast where she just doubled down on the lies.

I’m one of the posters who has vigorously argued that the defamation case is weak. but yeah, I’m surprised the NYTimes has still not learned that reporting on one side of the he-said she-said story is likely to be incredibly poor journalism. if the claim is they are just reporting on the complaint as filed, what’s the point of that? Hardly suits the NYTimes reputation. I don’t think this story was or is worth NYTimes attention unless it can be framed more broadly to be about the evolution of Hollywood.

I don't understand why they didn't go down this route or focus more about the PR agents. That way they could expand on Leslie Stone and Stephanie Jones. There is an interesting story there but it's not between Blake and Justin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please ignore the combative poster, we all know who she is. She is just trying to bait people and get this thread locked also.

+ 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Did they say why they didn’t include them?

And should they even be admitting to that?? That's basically Justin lawsuit. That they had all the text messages but purposefully excluded context to defame him. Let's say that's not enough for defamation. That admission is enough to wreck their reputations and that's simply will not go away.