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: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.

From reading the context of the texts in Justin's claim, I am not sure any of the texts that were omitted significantly changed the meaning or gave a completely different context. A lot of the omitted texts were more about logistics. I didn't think they told a different story or created a false case compared to the full text chains. Whether any of it is sufficient is a different question.

+1, their argument is that there were a couple places where the context casts doubt on whether the PR people actually did certain things (like whether they planted a story or were just happy when a story ran without them having to plant it). Yes that might be exonerating in specific instances and if there is more context the NYT should print it and explain how it changes the meaning.

But it's not like the context reveals that Baldoni did not in fact hire a PR team and crisis manager to go after Lively in the press in order to get ahead of any potential harassment allegations. The texts are full of actual proof that they did this work, including hiring Jed Wallace to astroturf/seed social media with anti-Lively sentiment and stories, which is the biggest and most damning allegation. The texts explicitly credit the work that "Jed and his team" are doing on this front and celebrate the success of their efforts with helping turn internet sentiment against Lively. There is no additional context that undermines that narrative. That's what happened.

There's no defamation here. These people really wrote these texts, they largely mean what they say. Here and there someone might be using irony or sarcasm that doesn't get picked up without context, but there are too many examples for that to be the case with every single one. Like you really think Baldoni and his team texted back and forth about destroying Lively in the press for months without actually doing anything? No. The story was accurate with perhaps a couple places where additional context would make a specific incident less damning.

Baldoni filed the defamation suit as a PR move to cast doubt on the whole narrative. But the narrative is like 99.9% true with a small amount of inaccuracy that does not actually change what they did. Baldoni hired them to smear Lively in the press and make him look better in comparison, and they did that.

Assuming for the moment this is true, it is absolutely criminal to present it out of context. And the context is that he hired the crisis firm because Blake and Ryan were in the midst of a campaign to destroy his career.

That isn't context, that's opinion and speculation.

And the article did provide the context of what was happening around the time he hired the PR firm, including that the public had become aware of a rift between Baldoni and Lively due to them not doing press together and Lively unfollowing him on social media. Those facts were reported. Your editorializing that it was "a campaign to destroy his career" was not because that's not a fact.

If the article was truly “meticulously investigated,”it would have presented both sides. Instead, it promoted would now appears to be mostly fabricated allegations when the least but of digging would have alerted the reporter that Blake’s story had lots of holes. Indeed, even the texts she had in her possession when read as a whole should have raised questions.

[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: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.

From reading the context of the texts in Justin's claim, I am not sure any of the texts that were omitted significantly changed the meaning or gave a completely different context. A lot of the omitted texts were more about logistics. I didn't think they told a different story or created a false case compared to the full text chains. Whether any of it is sufficient is a different question.

+1, their argument is that there were a couple places where the context casts doubt on whether the PR people actually did certain things (like whether they planted a story or were just happy when a story ran without them having to plant it). Yes that might be exonerating in specific instances and if there is more context the NYT should print it and explain how it changes the meaning.

But it's not like the context reveals that Baldoni did not in fact hire a PR team and crisis manager to go after Lively in the press in order to get ahead of any potential harassment allegations. The texts are full of actual proof that they did this work, including hiring Jed Wallace to astroturf/seed social media with anti-Lively sentiment and stories, which is the biggest and most damning allegation. The texts explicitly credit the work that "Jed and his team" are doing on this front and celebrate the success of their efforts with helping turn internet sentiment against Lively. There is no additional context that undermines that narrative. That's what happened.

There's no defamation here. These people really wrote these texts, they largely mean what they say. Here and there someone might be using irony or sarcasm that doesn't get picked up without context, but there are too many examples for that to be the case with every single one. Like you really think Baldoni and his team texted back and forth about destroying Lively in the press for months without actually doing anything? No. The story was accurate with perhaps a couple places where additional context would make a specific incident less damning.

Baldoni filed the defamation suit as a PR move to cast doubt on the whole narrative. But the narrative is like 99.9% true with a small amount of inaccuracy that does not actually change what they did. Baldoni hired them to smear Lively in the press and make him look better in comparison, and they did that.

Assuming for the moment this is true, it is absolutely criminal to present it out of context. And the context is that he hired the crisis firm because Blake and Ryan were in the midst of a campaign to destroy his career.

There is still a lot of evidence to be seen but I think it will be quite difficult to prove that she was never uncomfortable on set and that her only intention in creating her list of uncomfortable situations and desire for action was to destroy his career. Even in the released clip, it is clear she was uncomfortable and trying to get him to touch her less. To say there was no context of discomfort on her behalf and that it was all an orchaestrated campaign from the beginning to destroy him and get the rights will really be an uphill battle.

“uncomfortable” is not sexual harassment. And what I saw in that clip and even Lively’s characterization of it was truly unprofessional behavior on her part. I can’t see any jury anywhere thinking that (checks notes) a fellow actor kissing you *during a romantic slow dancing scene* is assault.

The harrassment comes from her claim of repeated incidents of ignoring her requests and knowingly making her uncomfortable. I don't know if it reaches the bar for harrassment as so much evidence isn't yet seen.

This wasn't written as a romantic scene. It was B roll filming without any choreography that just directed as slow dancing. They only shot they used in the film was their feet. It wasn't a choreographed romantic scence that was part of the plot or story. Typically kissing and physical intimacy should be pre arranged and approved in film now a days. Just like if he had groped her breast during the scene, he can't just say...but it was a slow dance and the movie plot is a romance between characters so I can touch her however I want. Improvising has to be agreed on. His claim is that she also improvised. They should release those clips too.

I believe they would like to, but they are now waiting for the ruling on the gag order Blake requested, which is designed to prevent them from releasing such footage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh I can say she was probably uncomfortable with that scene, but I don't think it's because of harassment but just the nature of the scene

This makes no sense because it's such a light, normal scene.

Especially in light of the scenes she filmed for Gossip Girl, this scene was about 10x more tame.

[Anonymous]

This thread has devolved into 2 or 3 mentally ill PR losers arguing back and forth and abusing the report function.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster has a point that the woman always seems to be on the losing end of these kinds of controversies.
Here though, BL filed first and my doing that is opening herself up to people picking sides. People are reacting to what she said/he said, and now public. It is human nature.
Second, did she learn anyting from the recent Heard case, which was a monstrosity. And note that Depp sued HER for defamation (after she published a generic op ed).
Where were BL and RR PR people in all this? This was dumb dumb dumb. Over some bad PR she perceived an no one else cared. So she thought it would be better to tee up WW3 and force people to look at all her text with JB, her past, etc, and take sides?

+1. she got everything she wanted and still wasn’t happy. she wanted more credit and to punish Baldoni. The theory that she was trying to get the rights from Hoover actually does not sound that far fetched.

I agree it doesn't seem far fetched. It is the only logical explanation for why she did this. It wasn't for the money. And please don't try it was her "me too" moment and she did it for the greater good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if some of the reason for all this is to see who gets to make the 2nd Hoover Ends with Us movie, does that 2nd book have same characters? If all had been merry, would it have meant both Justin and Blake would have been back or does book 2 just follow the female character from book 1 and Justin would not have been actor IN movie and only directing?

Acting money is peanuts. Controlling the rights and production is how you make nine figures and build a multi-billion production company with venture capital money. Or whatever their long-term scheme was. Something along those lines though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster has a point that the woman always seems to be on the losing end of these kinds of controversies.
Here though, BL filed first and my doing that is opening herself up to people picking sides. People are reacting to what she said/he said, and now public. It is human nature.
Second, did she learn anyting from the recent Heard case, which was a monstrosity. And note that Depp sued HER for defamation (after she published a generic op ed).
Where were BL and RR PR people in all this? This was dumb dumb dumb. Over some bad PR she perceived an no one else cared. So she thought it would be better to tee up WW3 and force people to look at all her text with JB, her past, etc, and take sides?

+1. she got everything she wanted and still wasn’t happy. she wanted more credit and to punish Baldoni. The theory that she was trying to get the rights from Hoover actually does not sound that far fetched.

Alternatively she was harassed throughout the filming of this movie and it only stopped when she asked Baldoni and Wayfarer to sign a document promising that she could have an intimacy coordinator with her at all times and to prevent her from every being alone with Baldoni or Heath again, and to also promise not to retaliate against her for raising these issues. And then they hired a crisis management team to ruin her reputation so that if she ever publicized these allegations, no one would believe her.

You'd rather believe an internet conspiracy theory that this whole thing is a long con to gain the rights to book that isn't even very good so she can make a moderately successful movie even though she's already rich AF and is developing a movie with Richard Gere and Lin-Manuel Miranda right now? Does that really make sense?

Maybe it's literally just what she says and she was harassed and then her harasser smeared her in the press and she sued because she didn't want to be taken advantage of like that.

I think Baldoni has make a very strong showing that her claims of “harassment” were all in her head. And her conduct that triggered Baldoni’s PR campaign was *not* her (spurious) complaint earlier but her conduct in publicly humiliating him during the film marketing and premiere.

And remember, one main incident in the story is her outsized reaction to having her edits on the script rejected. her whole demented “Khaleesi” rant was triggered because she desperately wanted to be in the creative/producer role. So yes, I do think it is entirely possible she was motivated at least in part by getting the movie rights.

Has he shown that though? At all? Here in the very early stages of these lawsuits when (to my knowledge) not a single witness has been deposed and the only things the public knows about what happened are their two competing narratives, some text messages, and a single piece of footage which can be used to back up both of their narratives but doesn't really prove either?

I don't know if he harassed her but neither do you. Why are you so eager to declare an outcome in a case that has barely begun and about which you know next to nothing? Why is this so important to you?

why is it so important to you?

The fact of the matter is, it is actually rare for a defendant to have evidence that casts SO much doubt on the plaintiff’s claims. the dance scene is the main one. The texts leading up to the “khaleesi” text and voicemail another one. There is no documentary evidence on the OB-GYN scene but I found the Baldoni complaint to be very persuasive (especially Lively’s ridiculous assertion that Baldoni hired a random friend to play the OB to gawk at her crotch.)

DP, but I am in and out of this thread because it's like 10-1 against Lively and the arguments on both sides are night and day. It's not even really accurate to say "both sides" in this context -- there isn't really even one single person in this thread who is on Lively's "side" - nobody here actually likes her or her work or cares enough to say so. But one or two posters reasonably defend her lawsuit and the mere idea that she may have felt harassed by Baldoni, without insulting Baldoni and/or his wife basically beyond repeating alleged facts, and I appreciate that. Meanwhile, we have Baldoni supporters saying "she was such a disaster acting the scene" or "temping down on the firehose of crap BL and RR were shooting at him" or Lively's "nutbar allegations" etc. Your rhetoric is way over the top compared to the more balanced other side. I just don't understand where the need to *crush* her is coming from. Some of you are not just arguing Baldoni's side like the other PP is doing (kinda) for Lively, but you're really, really angry at her.

It's just weird, and it does remind me of the Heard/Depp thread. Which nobody here says they participated in, because everyone here who supports Baldoni actually supported/supports Amber Heard. Right. Something about all the Lively hate in this thread hits me the wrong way so sometimes I report the worst comments or post the opposing view.

And fwiw, your explanation of why it's so important to you is weird, too. You're using all this overblown "I hate Lively" rhetoric because you found his complaint persuasive and you think Baldoni has a lot of evidence against Lively? That explains why you're arguing his side, but not why your attitude toward her is so filled with absolute hate and disgust. It's just weird. I'd say tone it down and try arguing the actual facts, but I know you won't listen, so whatever.

[Anonymous]

Just a PSA, ignore the obvious baiting so this thread remains open.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster has a point that the woman always seems to be on the losing end of these kinds of controversies.
Here though, BL filed first and my doing that is opening herself up to people picking sides. People are reacting to what she said/he said, and now public. It is human nature.
Second, did she learn anyting from the recent Heard case, which was a monstrosity. And note that Depp sued HER for defamation (after she published a generic op ed).
Where were BL and RR PR people in all this? This was dumb dumb dumb. Over some bad PR she perceived an no one else cared. So she thought it would be better to tee up WW3 and force people to look at all her text with JB, her past, etc, and take sides?

+1. she got everything she wanted and still wasn’t happy. she wanted more credit and to punish Baldoni. The theory that she was trying to get the rights from Hoover actually does not sound that far fetched.

Alternatively she was harassed throughout the filming of this movie and it only stopped when she asked Baldoni and Wayfarer to sign a document promising that she could have an intimacy coordinator with her at all times and to prevent her from every being alone with Baldoni or Heath again, and to also promise not to retaliate against her for raising these issues. And then they hired a crisis management team to ruin her reputation so that if she ever publicized these allegations, no one would believe her.

You'd rather believe an internet conspiracy theory that this whole thing is a long con to gain the rights to book that isn't even very good so she can make a moderately successful movie even though she's already rich AF and is developing a movie with Richard Gere and Lin-Manuel Miranda right now? Does that really make sense?

Maybe it's literally just what she says and she was harassed and then her harasser smeared her in the press and she sued because she didn't want to be taken advantage of like that.

I think Baldoni has make a very strong showing that her claims of “harassment” were all in her head. And her conduct that triggered Baldoni’s PR campaign was *not* her (spurious) complaint earlier but her conduct in publicly humiliating him during the film marketing and premiere.

And remember, one main incident in the story is her outsized reaction to having her edits on the script rejected. her whole demented “Khaleesi” rant was triggered because she desperately wanted to be in the creative/producer role. So yes, I do think it is entirely possible she was motivated at least in part by getting the movie rights.

Has he shown that though? At all? Here in the very early stages of these lawsuits when (to my knowledge) not a single witness has been deposed and the only things the public knows about what happened are their two competing narratives, some text messages, and a single piece of footage which can be used to back up both of their narratives but doesn't really prove either?

I don't know if he harassed her but neither do you. Why are you so eager to declare an outcome in a case that has barely begun and about which you know next to nothing? Why is this so important to you?

why is it so important to you?

The fact of the matter is, it is actually rare for a defendant to have evidence that casts SO much doubt on the plaintiff’s claims. the dance scene is the main one. The texts leading up to the “khaleesi” text and voicemail another one. There is no documentary evidence on the OB-GYN scene but I found the Baldoni complaint to be very persuasive (especially Lively’s ridiculous assertion that Baldoni hired a random friend to play the OB to gawk at her crotch.)

Lively’s assertions are crazy as far as I’m concerned, and they convey to me that she does not live in reality. At her level of wealth it’s astonishing that she’s continuing instead of trying to settle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster has a point that the woman always seems to be on the losing end of these kinds of controversies.
Here though, BL filed first and my doing that is opening herself up to people picking sides. People are reacting to what she said/he said, and now public. It is human nature.
Second, did she learn anyting from the recent Heard case, which was a monstrosity. And note that Depp sued HER for defamation (after she published a generic op ed).
Where were BL and RR PR people in all this? This was dumb dumb dumb. Over some bad PR she perceived an no one else cared. So she thought it would be better to tee up WW3 and force people to look at all her text with JB, her past, etc, and take sides?

+1. she got everything she wanted and still wasn’t happy. she wanted more credit and to punish Baldoni. The theory that she was trying to get the rights from Hoover actually does not sound that far fetched.

Alternatively she was harassed throughout the filming of this movie and it only stopped when she asked Baldoni and Wayfarer to sign a document promising that she could have an intimacy coordinator with her at all times and to prevent her from every being alone with Baldoni or Heath again, and to also promise not to retaliate against her for raising these issues. And then they hired a crisis management team to ruin her reputation so that if she ever publicized these allegations, no one would believe her.

You'd rather believe an internet conspiracy theory that this whole thing is a long con to gain the rights to book that isn't even very good so she can make a moderately successful movie even though she's already rich AF and is developing a movie with Richard Gere and Lin-Manuel Miranda right now? Does that really make sense?

Maybe it's literally just what she says and she was harassed and then her harasser smeared her in the press and she sued because she didn't want to be taken advantage of like that.

I think Baldoni has make a very strong showing that her claims of “harassment” were all in her head. And her conduct that triggered Baldoni’s PR campaign was *not* her (spurious) complaint earlier but her conduct in publicly humiliating him during the film marketing and premiere.

And remember, one main incident in the story is her outsized reaction to having her edits on the script rejected. her whole demented “Khaleesi” rant was triggered because she desperately wanted to be in the creative/producer role. So yes, I do think it is entirely possible she was motivated at least in part by getting the movie rights.

Has he shown that though? At all? Here in the very early stages of these lawsuits when (to my knowledge) not a single witness has been deposed and the only things the public knows about what happened are their two competing narratives, some text messages, and a single piece of footage which can be used to back up both of their narratives but doesn't really prove either?

I don't know if he harassed her but neither do you. Why are you so eager to declare an outcome in a case that has barely begun and about which you know next to nothing? Why is this so important to you?

why is it so important to you?

The fact of the matter is, it is actually rare for a defendant to have evidence that casts SO much doubt on the plaintiff’s claims. the dance scene is the main one. The texts leading up to the “khaleesi” text and voicemail another one. There is no documentary evidence on the OB-GYN scene but I found the Baldoni complaint to be very persuasive (especially Lively’s ridiculous assertion that Baldoni hired a random friend to play the OB to gawk at her crotch.)

Lively’s assertions are crazy as far as I’m concerned, and they convey to me that she does not live in reality. At her level of wealth it’s astonishing that she’s continuing instead of trying to settle.

DP. I feel like she’s sort of stuck…

[Anonymous]

Ruh-roh, the queen of extended adolescence doesn’t want to be Khaleesi’s dragon anymore.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14333583/Blake-Lively-legal-battle-Justin-Baldoni-friendship-Taylor-Swift-ruined.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ruh-roh, the queen of extended adolescence doesn’t want to be Khaleesi’s dragon anymore.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14333583/Blake-Lively-legal-battle-Justin-Baldoni-friendship-Taylor-Swift-ruined.html

I don't know if I necessarily believe the Daily Mail has sources about this, and I strongly believe Taylor Swift and Blake do have an authentic relationship, as naive as that might sound. But yeah, how can you not believe Taylor is at least a little annoyed by being dragged into this?

It could also get worse for her. This Reddit post said Blake was planning to go to the NYTimes MONTHS ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/ColleenHoover/comments/1eqwna5/ok_i_know_a_lot_of_the_inside_drama_for_iewu_and/

And in that post, they state "T swift finds out that the original composer for the movie is someone she worked with in the past that was mean to her, and she says it's either me or him"

More dirty laundry about Swift will probably get brought up the longer this battle goes on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ruh-roh, the queen of extended adolescence doesn’t want to be Khaleesi’s dragon anymore.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14333583/Blake-Lively-legal-battle-Justin-Baldoni-friendship-Taylor-Swift-ruined.html

Lol to anyone who believes this drivel and then wants to claim the NYT erred in its reporting on this conflict. "Sources close to" could mean literally anything, and based on the Daily Mail's track record, likely means a Daily Mail reporter who has an in with with someone who met Taylor once.

I strongly google to believe that Taylor would ditch Lively now after very publicly supporting her last summer and fall when she was getting all that press. I also don't believe Taylor "feels used." Taylor has a track record of very publicly allowing herself to "be used" to help her friends. Like taking Brittany Mahomes under her wing or publicly supporting Sophie Turner during her divorce from Joe Jonas. It's one of the ways she flexes her power, by using her umbrella to support and defend her friends, especially when she feels they are being treated badly by the press or other powerful people. Basically exactly what Lively describes in her "khaleesi" text, actually. That's what Taylor does and she's proud of it.

[Anonymous]

^ struggle, not "strongly google" -- lol autocorrect but no

[Anonymous]

Who wouldn’t be pissed at BL for the dragons text? I doubt Taylor will be around her anytime soon.