Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding Flaa, it really does look like there's no connection between her and Baldoni's team. Barring some kind of smoking gun that hasn't been unearthed yet, I think the implication that she posted the interview back in August as part of a conspiracy is dead in the water.

That's said, I will say that I have severely soured on Flaa since she posted the interview. I was fully on her side when she posted it and still think Lively's behavior was pretty abhorrent. But it's pretty obvious at this point that Flaa just rides a gravy train of attaching herself to controversial celebrity topics and then milking them. The "JusticeforJonny" thing is gross (Depp was an abuser, sorry) and Flaa is STILL milking the Lively thing, since she obviously figured out her rather minor involvement in it could become a source of income. But she's not a real journalist. I tried watching one of her videos and it's just influencer drivel. I never had a problem with her posting that video but I've lost respect for her now that I know more about her.

She’s a journalist- it’s a rough job and getting to tougher to make a living. The 2016 interview with Blake was so bad it didn’t air at the time so Blake essentially wasted her time. She was also struggling with infertility so the “congrats on YOUR little bump” that Blake shot back hit her hard.

The woman was pissed, saw Blake was having a moment, and wanted to get clicks. I don’t see a problem with that. If you don’t want people to hold grudges and use them at opportune times, maybe be a little more professional and mature when you present yourself to a journalist as part of your job to promote your movie (which was a total flop anyway).

It’s unbelievable to me the times just included her without verifying that she was in fact part of the campaign. I’m not a lawyer but it really bothers me they can get away with that. It’s super sloppy.

Twobey is dancing in the ugly space between unprofessional and liar all through that piece. It’s disappointing and for me her career is diminished. Jane Meyer would never, Rebecca Traister, Roman Farrow, so many journalists who deal with sex and work and culture just would never ever put out that kind of piece.

The Times helped drag us into the Iraq war. Didn’t they also run PR cover for Bill Gates after Epstein and his divorce. Publishing a hit piece for Blake, Ryan and Ari is just business as usual.

Eh, I think they messed up here but overall I think they do great and much needed journalism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding Flaa, it really does look like there's no connection between her and Baldoni's team. Barring some kind of smoking gun that hasn't been unearthed yet, I think the implication that she posted the interview back in August as part of a conspiracy is dead in the water.

That's said, I will say that I have severely soured on Flaa since she posted the interview. I was fully on her side when she posted it and still think Lively's behavior was pretty abhorrent. But it's pretty obvious at this point that Flaa just rides a gravy train of attaching herself to controversial celebrity topics and then milking them. The "JusticeforJonny" thing is gross (Depp was an abuser, sorry) and Flaa is STILL milking the Lively thing, since she obviously figured out her rather minor involvement in it could become a source of income. But she's not a real journalist. I tried watching one of her videos and it's just influencer drivel. I never had a problem with her posting that video but I've lost respect for her now that I know more about her.

She’s a journalist- it’s a rough job and getting to tougher to make a living. The 2016 interview with Blake was so bad it didn’t air at the time so Blake essentially wasted her time. She was also struggling with infertility so the “congrats on YOUR little bump” that Blake shot back hit her hard.

The woman was pissed, saw Blake was having a moment, and wanted to get clicks. I don’t see a problem with that. If you don’t want people to hold grudges and use them at opportune times, maybe be a little more professional and mature when you present yourself to a journalist as part of your job to promote your movie (which was a total flop anyway).

It’s unbelievable to me the times just included her without verifying that she was in fact part of the campaign. I’m not a lawyer but it really bothers me they can get away with that. It’s super sloppy.

Twobey is dancing in the ugly space between unprofessional and liar all through that piece. It’s disappointing and for me her career is diminished. Jane Meyer would never, Rebecca Traister, Roman Farrow, so many journalists who deal with sex and work and culture just would never ever put out that kind of piece.

The Times helped drag us into the Iraq war. Didn’t they also run PR cover for Bill Gates after Epstein and his divorce. Publishing a hit piece for Blake, Ryan and Ari is just business as usual.

Eh, I think they messed up here but overall I think they do great and much needed journalism

Judith Miller hearts you! I guess you should text Freedman and co your view so they can just roll over now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding Flaa, it really does look like there's no connection between her and Baldoni's team. Barring some kind of smoking gun that hasn't been unearthed yet, I think the implication that she posted the interview back in August as part of a conspiracy is dead in the water.

That's said, I will say that I have severely soured on Flaa since she posted the interview. I was fully on her side when she posted it and still think Lively's behavior was pretty abhorrent. But it's pretty obvious at this point that Flaa just rides a gravy train of attaching herself to controversial celebrity topics and then milking them. The "JusticeforJonny" thing is gross (Depp was an abuser, sorry) and Flaa is STILL milking the Lively thing, since she obviously figured out her rather minor involvement in it could become a source of income. But she's not a real journalist. I tried watching one of her videos and it's just influencer drivel. I never had a problem with her posting that video but I've lost respect for her now that I know more about her.

She’s a journalist- it’s a rough job and getting to tougher to make a living. The 2016 interview with Blake was so bad it didn’t air at the time so Blake essentially wasted her time. She was also struggling with infertility so the “congrats on YOUR little bump” that Blake shot back hit her hard.

The woman was pissed, saw Blake was having a moment, and wanted to get clicks. I don’t see a problem with that. If you don’t want people to hold grudges and use them at opportune times, maybe be a little more professional and mature when you present yourself to a journalist as part of your job to promote your movie (which was a total flop anyway).

It’s unbelievable to me the times just included her without verifying that she was in fact part of the campaign. I’m not a lawyer but it really bothers me they can get away with that. It’s super sloppy.

Twobey is dancing in the ugly space between unprofessional and liar all through that piece. It’s disappointing and for me her career is diminished. Jane Meyer would never, Rebecca Traister, Roman Farrow, so many journalists who deal with sex and work and culture just would never ever put out that kind of piece.

The Times helped drag us into the Iraq war. Didn’t they also run PR cover for Bill Gates after Epstein and his divorce. Publishing a hit piece for Blake, Ryan and Ari is just business as usual.

Eh, I think they messed up here but overall I think they do great and much needed journalism

Judith Miller hearts you! I guess you should text Freedman and co your view so they can just roll over now.

I want to expand on this. In my own adulthood, the issues of Miller, Jayson Blair, ceding the editorial page to Stephens, Baro Weiss and others and the ombudsman/ ombudswoman have been serious issues that the NYT really countered best with Me Too and the Pulitzer for Kantor and Twohey and having them be the Woodward and Bernstein of that movement was crucial to restore some glow and rep back on the paper of record. So these Hollywood less intellectual less hard to parse cases matter a lot in terms of being representative of the overall integrity of the paper.

The Times will likely get out of this mess quick but this is a very bad look for them. It helps seed the idea that the paper is only for the powerful, it seeds distrust in traditional media. They fqd up and did a bad job, and the stain may be small but it’s permanent for some people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding Flaa, it really does look like there's no connection between her and Baldoni's team. Barring some kind of smoking gun that hasn't been unearthed yet, I think the implication that she posted the interview back in August as part of a conspiracy is dead in the water.

That's said, I will say that I have severely soured on Flaa since she posted the interview. I was fully on her side when she posted it and still think Lively's behavior was pretty abhorrent. But it's pretty obvious at this point that Flaa just rides a gravy train of attaching herself to controversial celebrity topics and then milking them. The "JusticeforJonny" thing is gross (Depp was an abuser, sorry) and Flaa is STILL milking the Lively thing, since she obviously figured out her rather minor involvement in it could become a source of income. But she's not a real journalist. I tried watching one of her videos and it's just influencer drivel. I never had a problem with her posting that video but I've lost respect for her now that I know more about her.

She’s a journalist- it’s a rough job and getting to tougher to make a living. The 2016 interview with Blake was so bad it didn’t air at the time so Blake essentially wasted her time. She was also struggling with infertility so the “congrats on YOUR little bump” that Blake shot back hit her hard.

The woman was pissed, saw Blake was having a moment, and wanted to get clicks. I don’t see a problem with that. If you don’t want people to hold grudges and use them at opportune times, maybe be a little more professional and mature when you present yourself to a journalist as part of your job to promote your movie (which was a total flop anyway).

It’s unbelievable to me the times just included her without verifying that she was in fact part of the campaign. I’m not a lawyer but it really bothers me they can get away with that. It’s super sloppy.

Twobey is dancing in the ugly space between unprofessional and liar all through that piece. It’s disappointing and for me her career is diminished. Jane Meyer would never, Rebecca Traister, Roman Farrow, so many journalists who deal with sex and work and culture just would never ever put out that kind of piece.

The Times helped drag us into the Iraq war. Didn’t they also run PR cover for Bill Gates after Epstein and his divorce. Publishing a hit piece for Blake, Ryan and Ari is just business as usual.

Eh, I think they messed up here but overall I think they do great and much needed journalism

Judith Miller hearts you! I guess you should text Freedman and co your view so they can just roll over now.

Huh? I love/hate the NYT and I’m the one who has been posting for ages that the NYT messed up, and has risk here. I’m totally fascinated bc they’re also sort of haughty and ‘never settle’ so I’m curious how this will play out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding Flaa, it really does look like there's no connection between her and Baldoni's team. Barring some kind of smoking gun that hasn't been unearthed yet, I think the implication that she posted the interview back in August as part of a conspiracy is dead in the water.

That's said, I will say that I have severely soured on Flaa since she posted the interview. I was fully on her side when she posted it and still think Lively's behavior was pretty abhorrent. But it's pretty obvious at this point that Flaa just rides a gravy train of attaching herself to controversial celebrity topics and then milking them. The "JusticeforJonny" thing is gross (Depp was an abuser, sorry) and Flaa is STILL milking the Lively thing, since she obviously figured out her rather minor involvement in it could become a source of income. But she's not a real journalist. I tried watching one of her videos and it's just influencer drivel. I never had a problem with her posting that video but I've lost respect for her now that I know more about her.

She’s a journalist- it’s a rough job and getting to tougher to make a living. The 2016 interview with Blake was so bad it didn’t air at the time so Blake essentially wasted her time. She was also struggling with infertility so the “congrats on YOUR little bump” that Blake shot back hit her hard.

The woman was pissed, saw Blake was having a moment, and wanted to get clicks. I don’t see a problem with that. If you don’t want people to hold grudges and use them at opportune times, maybe be a little more professional and mature when you present yourself to a journalist as part of your job to promote your movie (which was a total flop anyway).

It’s unbelievable to me the times just included her without verifying that she was in fact part of the campaign. I’m not a lawyer but it really bothers me they can get away with that. It’s super sloppy.

Twobey is dancing in the ugly space between unprofessional and liar all through that piece. It’s disappointing and for me her career is diminished. Jane Meyer would never, Rebecca Traister, Roman Farrow, so many journalists who deal with sex and work and culture just would never ever put out that kind of piece.

The Times helped drag us into the Iraq war. Didn’t they also run PR cover for Bill Gates after Epstein and his divorce. Publishing a hit piece for Blake, Ryan and Ari is just business as usual.

Eh, I think they messed up here but overall I think they do great and much needed journalism

Same. I also think they messed up here in an allowable, non-defamatory way. Baldoni's not even arguing that he didn't do what Lively alleges, but that context makes it not SH and that his PR campaign against her was not retaliatory but a necessary response to her own PR attacks. Which means they are mostly admitting to what happened on the set AND to the PR allegations but simply recasting them as permissible behavior.

In other words, the Times got the facts right but more context recasts the allegations. However, Wayfarer was given a chance to provide context and chose not to, just denied the allegations. In subsequent reporting, the Times has covered Wayfarer's more elaborate defenses in their complaint against Lively (and the Times).

You can be annoyed that they took a biased angle when reporting the allegations, but again, nothing they reported was false. And biased reporting isn't defamatory -- Fox News does it daily. I agree we should hold the NYT to a higher standard, which is why I think they messed up here. But at the end of the day, Baldoni's beef is with Lively, not the NYT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding Flaa, it really does look like there's no connection between her and Baldoni's team. Barring some kind of smoking gun that hasn't been unearthed yet, I think the implication that she posted the interview back in August as part of a conspiracy is dead in the water.

That's said, I will say that I have severely soured on Flaa since she posted the interview. I was fully on her side when she posted it and still think Lively's behavior was pretty abhorrent. But it's pretty obvious at this point that Flaa just rides a gravy train of attaching herself to controversial celebrity topics and then milking them. The "JusticeforJonny" thing is gross (Depp was an abuser, sorry) and Flaa is STILL milking the Lively thing, since she obviously figured out her rather minor involvement in it could become a source of income. But she's not a real journalist. I tried watching one of her videos and it's just influencer drivel. I never had a problem with her posting that video but I've lost respect for her now that I know more about her.

She’s a journalist- it’s a rough job and getting to tougher to make a living. The 2016 interview with Blake was so bad it didn’t air at the time so Blake essentially wasted her time. She was also struggling with infertility so the “congrats on YOUR little bump” that Blake shot back hit her hard.

The woman was pissed, saw Blake was having a moment, and wanted to get clicks. I don’t see a problem with that. If you don’t want people to hold grudges and use them at opportune times, maybe be a little more professional and mature when you present yourself to a journalist as part of your job to promote your movie (which was a total flop anyway).

It’s unbelievable to me the times just included her without verifying that she was in fact part of the campaign. I’m not a lawyer but it really bothers me they can get away with that. It’s super sloppy.

Twobey is dancing in the ugly space between unprofessional and liar all through that piece. It’s disappointing and for me her career is diminished. Jane Meyer would never, Rebecca Traister, Roman Farrow, so many journalists who deal with sex and work and culture just would never ever put out that kind of piece.

The Times helped drag us into the Iraq war. Didn’t they also run PR cover for Bill Gates after Epstein and his divorce. Publishing a hit piece for Blake, Ryan and Ari is just business as usual.

Eh, I think they messed up here but overall I think they do great and much needed journalism

Judith Miller hearts you! I guess you should text Freedman and co your view so they can just roll over now.

I want to expand on this. In my own adulthood, the issues of Miller, Jayson Blair, ceding the editorial page to Stephens, Baro Weiss and others and the ombudsman/ ombudswoman have been serious issues that the NYT really countered best with Me Too and the Pulitzer for Kantor and Twohey and having them be the Woodward and Bernstein of that movement was crucial to restore some glow and rep back on the paper of record. So these Hollywood less intellectual less hard to parse cases matter a lot in terms of being representative of the overall integrity of the paper.

The Times will likely get out of this mess quick but this is a very bad look for them. It helps seed the idea that the paper is only for the powerful, it seeds distrust in traditional media. They fqd up and did a bad job, and the stain may be small but it’s permanent for some people.

How will they? It won’t be on that MTD

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding Flaa, it really does look like there's no connection between her and Baldoni's team. Barring some kind of smoking gun that hasn't been unearthed yet, I think the implication that she posted the interview back in August as part of a conspiracy is dead in the water.

That's said, I will say that I have severely soured on Flaa since she posted the interview. I was fully on her side when she posted it and still think Lively's behavior was pretty abhorrent. But it's pretty obvious at this point that Flaa just rides a gravy train of attaching herself to controversial celebrity topics and then milking them. The "JusticeforJonny" thing is gross (Depp was an abuser, sorry) and Flaa is STILL milking the Lively thing, since she obviously figured out her rather minor involvement in it could become a source of income. But she's not a real journalist. I tried watching one of her videos and it's just influencer drivel. I never had a problem with her posting that video but I've lost respect for her now that I know more about her.

She’s a journalist- it’s a rough job and getting to tougher to make a living. The 2016 interview with Blake was so bad it didn’t air at the time so Blake essentially wasted her time. She was also struggling with infertility so the “congrats on YOUR little bump” that Blake shot back hit her hard.

The woman was pissed, saw Blake was having a moment, and wanted to get clicks. I don’t see a problem with that. If you don’t want people to hold grudges and use them at opportune times, maybe be a little more professional and mature when you present yourself to a journalist as part of your job to promote your movie (which was a total flop anyway).

It’s unbelievable to me the times just included her without verifying that she was in fact part of the campaign. I’m not a lawyer but it really bothers me they can get away with that. It’s super sloppy.

Twobey is dancing in the ugly space between unprofessional and liar all through that piece. It’s disappointing and for me her career is diminished. Jane Meyer would never, Rebecca Traister, Roman Farrow, so many journalists who deal with sex and work and culture just would never ever put out that kind of piece.

The Times helped drag us into the Iraq war. Didn’t they also run PR cover for Bill Gates after Epstein and his divorce. Publishing a hit piece for Blake, Ryan and Ari is just business as usual.

Eh, I think they messed up here but overall I think they do great and much needed journalism

Same. I also think they messed up here in an allowable, non-defamatory way. Baldoni's not even arguing that he didn't do what Lively alleges, but that context makes it not SH and that his PR campaign against her was not retaliatory but a necessary response to her own PR attacks. Which means they are mostly admitting to what happened on the set AND to the PR allegations but simply recasting them as permissible behavior.

In other words, the Times got the facts right but more context recasts the allegations. However, Wayfarer was given a chance to provide context and chose not to, just denied the allegations. In subsequent reporting, the Times has covered Wayfarer's more elaborate defenses in their complaint against Lively (and the Times).

You can be annoyed that they took a biased angle when reporting the allegations, but again, nothing they reported was false. And biased reporting isn't defamatory -- Fox News does it daily. I agree we should hold the NYT to a higher standard, which is why I think they messed up here. But at the end of the day, Baldoni's beef is with Lively, not the NYT.

Yes and no. This is where defamatory implication and even false light claims might be the determining arguments here, and very possibly in front of a jury who tend to be swayed by the likability of the parties

[Anonymous]

When corporate media gets it so wrong, seemingly deliberately, they gotta pay up. Even Trump’s cracked a few of them for eight figure settlements. This NYT hit piece did irreparable harm to Justin and his family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding Flaa, it really does look like there's no connection between her and Baldoni's team. Barring some kind of smoking gun that hasn't been unearthed yet, I think the implication that she posted the interview back in August as part of a conspiracy is dead in the water.

That's said, I will say that I have severely soured on Flaa since she posted the interview. I was fully on her side when she posted it and still think Lively's behavior was pretty abhorrent. But it's pretty obvious at this point that Flaa just rides a gravy train of attaching herself to controversial celebrity topics and then milking them. The "JusticeforJonny" thing is gross (Depp was an abuser, sorry) and Flaa is STILL milking the Lively thing, since she obviously figured out her rather minor involvement in it could become a source of income. But she's not a real journalist. I tried watching one of her videos and it's just influencer drivel. I never had a problem with her posting that video but I've lost respect for her now that I know more about her.

She’s a journalist- it’s a rough job and getting to tougher to make a living. The 2016 interview with Blake was so bad it didn’t air at the time so Blake essentially wasted her time. She was also struggling with infertility so the “congrats on YOUR little bump” that Blake shot back hit her hard.

The woman was pissed, saw Blake was having a moment, and wanted to get clicks. I don’t see a problem with that. If you don’t want people to hold grudges and use them at opportune times, maybe be a little more professional and mature when you present yourself to a journalist as part of your job to promote your movie (which was a total flop anyway).

It’s unbelievable to me the times just included her without verifying that she was in fact part of the campaign. I’m not a lawyer but it really bothers me they can get away with that. It’s super sloppy.

Twobey is dancing in the ugly space between unprofessional and liar all through that piece. It’s disappointing and for me her career is diminished. Jane Meyer would never, Rebecca Traister, Roman Farrow, so many journalists who deal with sex and work and culture just would never ever put out that kind of piece.

The Times helped drag us into the Iraq war. Didn’t they also run PR cover for Bill Gates after Epstein and his divorce. Publishing a hit piece for Blake, Ryan and Ari is just business as usual.

Eh, I think they messed up here but overall I think they do great and much needed journalism

Same. I also think they messed up here in an allowable, non-defamatory way. Baldoni's not even arguing that he didn't do what Lively alleges, but that context makes it not SH and that his PR campaign against her was not retaliatory but a necessary response to her own PR attacks. Which means they are mostly admitting to what happened on the set AND to the PR allegations but simply recasting them as permissible behavior.

In other words, the Times got the facts right but more context recasts the allegations. However, Wayfarer was given a chance to provide context and chose not to, just denied the allegations. In subsequent reporting, the Times has covered Wayfarer's more elaborate defenses in their complaint against Lively (and the Times).

You can be annoyed that they took a biased angle when reporting the allegations, but again, nothing they reported was false. And biased reporting isn't defamatory -- Fox News does it daily. I agree we should hold the NYT to a higher standard, which is why I think they messed up here. But at the end of the day, Baldoni's beef is with Lively, not the NYT.

I tend to agree with this analysis. It was very slanted reporting, but the vast majority of the article is citing from either the complaint or the texts. The texts are real. The complaint is real (that doesn't mean the contents of it are true). It doesn't really matter too much that they also interviewed her and read the texts as part of the process since most of the reporting comes from primary sources. They're allowed to cherry pick and be biased. There are some comments here and there that belong to the times. They characterized what the complaint described as a retaliatory PR campaign as a smear campaign. They might be liable there. Maybe not. This is all before we even get to actual malice. I just don’t see a duty to provide all possible context to make it fair to both sides.

The thing is Baldoni actually does have a lot of context that makes the SH allegations look weak, but he only had a matter of hours to respond to the article. There wasn't enough time to say much more than we deny everything. You couldn't expect them to formulate a response to the entire CRD complaint in one night. Had they spent months interviewing him as I suspect they did with Lively, and heard him out and let him explain, they might not even have proceeded with the article at all! It was sloppy and biased not to do that, but I don't believe they had any legal obligation to do that, so I ultimately believe the NYT prevails. Filing the lawsuit gave him the opportunity to respond point by point and save his reputation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding Flaa, it really does look like there's no connection between her and Baldoni's team. Barring some kind of smoking gun that hasn't been unearthed yet, I think the implication that she posted the interview back in August as part of a conspiracy is dead in the water.

That's said, I will say that I have severely soured on Flaa since she posted the interview. I was fully on her side when she posted it and still think Lively's behavior was pretty abhorrent. But it's pretty obvious at this point that Flaa just rides a gravy train of attaching herself to controversial celebrity topics and then milking them. The "JusticeforJonny" thing is gross (Depp was an abuser, sorry) and Flaa is STILL milking the Lively thing, since she obviously figured out her rather minor involvement in it could become a source of income. But she's not a real journalist. I tried watching one of her videos and it's just influencer drivel. I never had a problem with her posting that video but I've lost respect for her now that I know more about her.

She’s a journalist- it’s a rough job and getting to tougher to make a living. The 2016 interview with Blake was so bad it didn’t air at the time so Blake essentially wasted her time. She was also struggling with infertility so the “congrats on YOUR little bump” that Blake shot back hit her hard.

The woman was pissed, saw Blake was having a moment, and wanted to get clicks. I don’t see a problem with that. If you don’t want people to hold grudges and use them at opportune times, maybe be a little more professional and mature when you present yourself to a journalist as part of your job to promote your movie (which was a total flop anyway).

It’s unbelievable to me the times just included her without verifying that she was in fact part of the campaign. I’m not a lawyer but it really bothers me they can get away with that. It’s super sloppy.

Twobey is dancing in the ugly space between unprofessional and liar all through that piece. It’s disappointing and for me her career is diminished. Jane Meyer would never, Rebecca Traister, Roman Farrow, so many journalists who deal with sex and work and culture just would never ever put out that kind of piece.

The Times helped drag us into the Iraq war. Didn’t they also run PR cover for Bill Gates after Epstein and his divorce. Publishing a hit piece for Blake, Ryan and Ari is just business as usual.

Eh, I think they messed up here but overall I think they do great and much needed journalism

Same. I also think they messed up here in an allowable, non-defamatory way. Baldoni's not even arguing that he didn't do what Lively alleges, but that context makes it not SH and that his PR campaign against her was not retaliatory but a necessary response to her own PR attacks. Which means they are mostly admitting to what happened on the set AND to the PR allegations but simply recasting them as permissible behavior.

In other words, the Times got the facts right but more context recasts the allegations. However, Wayfarer was given a chance to provide context and chose not to, just denied the allegations. In subsequent reporting, the Times has covered Wayfarer's more elaborate defenses in their complaint against Lively (and the Times).

You can be annoyed that they took a biased angle when reporting the allegations, but again, nothing they reported was false. And biased reporting isn't defamatory -- Fox News does it daily. I agree we should hold the NYT to a higher standard, which is why I think they messed up here. But at the end of the day, Baldoni's beef is with Lively, not the NYT.

But didn’t Fox News get out of a big lawsuit by having to admit they are entertainment and not news?

[Anonymous]

I wouldn’t be surprised if legally the NYT prevails but they definitely added to overall distrust of the big traditional media. It’s winning the battle to lose the war. People are pissed and Twoey’s credibility is weakened. It certainly makes the next SH story that much tougher.

I really can’t recall a big me too article like this that didn’t rely on numerous women and years of complaints. I get that Blake is a huge celebrity - but that an itself should have given them pause given the immense power she yielded. I imagine they dealt with dozens of individuals on her huge team and yet they didn’t one ask themselves, I wonder why with such a big team no one could figure out how to file an official HR complaint the whole time? And she was sexually harassed yet managed to take control of the entire film and essentially push him out entirely? All the things we’ve discussed to death already.

And they didn’t verify basic claims…..the Flaa thing which we’ve discussed, but also we were blatantly told there was no IC only to find out, gee, yes there was, and she was hired before anyone even walked on set. And all the other additional context around most of her complaints.

So it’s disturbing that legally they won’t be held accountable. Considering we’ve been through Fox News having to take very little accountability, I doubt many will be surprised, and it will just cause more people to look for other sources of news.

[Anonymous]

jesus people it was an article reporting on a legal filing, they don't need to litigate the case internally and take testimony from both sides and determine whether the plaintiff will win before reporting on it. how do you think news gets reported? they asked his view and they reported his denial. get over it. again times will win this MTD 100% as they should

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:jesus people it was an article reporting on a legal filing, they don't need to litigate the case internally and take testimony from both sides and determine whether the plaintiff will win before reporting on it. how do you think news gets reported? they asked his view and they reported his denial. get over it. again times will win this MTD 100% as they should

When you are labeling someone a sexual harasser the bar needs to be higher. I agree with you that they will probably win legally, but I don’t think this helped the paper or corporate media and both aren’t doing so great right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:jesus people it was an article reporting on a legal filing, they don't need to litigate the case internally and take testimony from both sides and determine whether the plaintiff will win before reporting on it. how do you think news gets reported? they asked his view and they reported his denial. get over it. again times will win this MTD 100% as they should

Nothing is 100 percent guaranteed to happen in litigation, least of all a MTD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:jesus people it was an article reporting on a legal filing, they don't need to litigate the case internally and take testimony from both sides and determine whether the plaintiff will win before reporting on it. how do you think news gets reported? they asked his view and they reported his denial. get over it. again times will win this MTD 100% as they should

When you are labeling someone a sexual harasser the bar needs to be higher. I agree with you that they will probably win legally, but I don’t think this helped the paper or corporate media and both aren’t doing so great right now.

the times didn't label anyone a sexual harasser, they reported on a legal filing that did.