Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Uhm Taylor will cut off anyone in a heartbeat for messing with her brand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Daily Mail article sounds like it's full of shit and like it's based on speculation on what they think Taylor is feeling, but the NYTimes is and should be held to way higher standards lol.

[Anonymous]

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

What did she say in the text that Taylor would be pissed about? The TL;DR on that text is: "I struggle advocating for myself but my husband and best friend are great at doing that for themselves and are encouraging me by advocating in my behalf; also I don't know why you'd be upset by having Ryan Reynolds and Taylor Swift in your life, seem like good friends to have IMHO."

Why would TS be mad about this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Uhm Taylor will cut off anyone in a heartbeat for messing with her brand.

Backing her friends up IS her brand.

Ditching Lively would actually be off brand for her.

Swift is all about her squad.

[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.

Can we talk about why there is just a 2 second shot of her feet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you seriously comparing the NYT to Daily Mail? Wow. I’m sure they’d love that comparison

The fact is people assume the NYT is ‘meticulous’ as they claimed and legitimate. And it wasn’t. And that will make a difference if the defamation case moves forward

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

What did she say in the text that Taylor would be pissed about? The TL;DR on that text is: "I struggle advocating for myself but my husband and best friend are great at doing that for themselves and are encouraging me by advocating in my behalf; also I don't know why you'd be upset by having Ryan Reynolds and Taylor Swift in your life, seem like good friends to have IMHO."

Why would TS be mad about this?

DP If she is annoyed, which I think is likely, I think it's more that she's annoyed at the overall situation of her name being mentioned in the media about a contentious case. I don't know if she's necessarily upset with Blake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you seriously comparing the NYT to Daily Mail? Wow. I’m sure they’d love that comparison

The fact is people assume the NYT is ‘meticulous’ as they claimed and legitimate. And it wasn’t. And that will make a difference if the defamation case moves forward

The strange thing is, the Daily Mail sometimes actually is more informative than the NYTimes because it excerpts/links more comprehensively to documents.

[Anonymous]

So why wasn’t BL at the game with TS? That would have been a great signal of support from Taylor if she was so inclined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So why wasn’t BL at the game with TS? That would have been a great signal of support from Taylor if she was so inclined.

Has Taylor been seen with Blair in 2025?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you seriously comparing the NYT to Daily Mail? Wow. I’m sure they’d love that comparison

The fact is people assume the NYT is ‘meticulous’ as they claimed and legitimate. And it wasn’t. And that will make a difference if the defamation case moves forward

The point is not that NYT is infallible. The point is that if NYT's reporting should be taken with a grain of salt (and it should be), the Daily Mail should NEVER be relied upon as a source for info.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you seriously comparing the NYT to Daily Mail? Wow. I’m sure they’d love that comparison

The fact is people assume the NYT is ‘meticulous’ as they claimed and legitimate. And it wasn’t. And that will make a difference if the defamation case moves forward

The strange thing is, the Daily Mail sometimes actually is more informative than the NYTimes because it excerpts/links more comprehensively to documents.

Is that the case here, or is this a totally unsubstantiated claim from an unidentified source with zero corroboration?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What did she say in the text that Taylor would be pissed about? The TL;DR on that text is: "I struggle advocating for myself but my husband and best friend are great at doing that for themselves and are encouraging me by advocating in my behalf; also I don't know why you'd be upset by having Ryan Reynolds and Taylor Swift in your life, seem like good friends to have IMHO."

Why would TS be mad about this?

DP If she is annoyed, which I think is likely, I think it's more that she's annoyed at the overall situation of her name being mentioned in the media about a contentious case. I don't know if she's necessarily upset with Blake.

+1, if she's annoyed it makes more sense for her to be annoyed with Baldoni for dragging her into it even though his allegation in his complaint is that it was unfair for Swift to say sue liked a scene Lively wrote because apparently Baldoni finds it impossible to disagree with Taylor Swift regarding his own movie? I don't get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uhm Taylor will cut off anyone in a heartbeat for messing with her brand.

Backing her friends up IS her brand.

Ditching Lively would actually be off brand for her.

Swift is all about her squad.

Hollywood is full of phony people pretending to be friends. Remember Jay Z is now acting like he barely knew Diddy after hanging out with him for 30 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

Notices that all the instances you mentioned are Taylor flexing her power on her terms. SHE took out Sophie Turner, SHE made the decision to hang with Brittany. Someone invoking her in text isn't really the same thing. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I'm just saying I don't think it's that unbelievable she'd be annoyed, just like I wouldn't be surprised if she weren't annoyed. Could go either way.