Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
i would put money on this one |
Anonymous
|
When I read it, it didn’t seem like an article reporting a legal filing. Everyone was tagging people and saying, “you have to read this NYT article!” Not, “can you believe Blake is suing this guy?” It felt like an expose.
I’ll have to go back and reread it in light of everything I know now. Maybe I was responding more to the social media around it than the actual article. |
Anonymous
I don't think they labelled him a sexual harasser. The response to the article was really more focused on the PR angle because of the texts. Even the article was mostly focused on the PR angle because, again, they had the texts. If someone read it and thought "well 100% the sexual harassment in the complaint happened exactly as described," that is a problem with a reader being overzealous, not with the the reporting. Because that's not what they said. Everything about the SH was was couched as an allegation. Only the PR activity in the texts was asserted as something that happened, because the texts were real. |
Anonymous
That says more about you than the motion. |
Anonymous
The first few paragraphs of the article (emphasis mine) Last summer, as the release of “It Ends With Us” approached, Justin Baldoni, the director and a star of the film, and Jamey Heath, the lead producer, hired a crisis public relations expert. During shooting, Blake Lively, the co-star, had complained that the men had repeatedly violated physical boundaries and made sexual and other inappropriate comments to her. Their studio, Wayfarer, agreed to provide a full-time intimacy coordinator, bring in an outside producer and put other safeguards on set. In a side letter to Ms. Lively’s contract, signed by Mr. Heath, the studio also agreed not to retaliate against the actress. But by August, the two men, who had positioned themselves as feminist allies in the #MeToo era, expressed fears that her allegations would become public and taint them, according to a legal complaint that she filed Friday. It claims that their P.R. effort had an explicit goal: to harm Ms. Lively’s reputation instead. Her filing includes excerpts from thousands of pages of text messages and emails that she obtained through a subpoena. These and other documents were reviewed by The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/21/business/media/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-it-ends-with-us.html |
Anonymous
|
As someone who had never heard of Baldoni or this movie, and only knew of Blake as Ryan's wife and Taylor's friend...the first things I saw was quite a few threads about what an awful person she was. On here and on reddit. At first I skipped or skimmed them but then there were more and I ended up reading a few to see why this woman was suddenly getting so much negative attention. They were all about past interviews and how she was a mean girl. At first I didn't even see much connection to the movie or Baldoni, they were just focused on criticizing her and showing examples of her not being nice to others. Since many of the clips were old, it struck me as odd as to why they were all being reposted and discussed now and why was she making headlines for these clips.
Eventually I got sucked into the vortex but as someone who knew very little of her, definitely the first things that were being said about her that were available to the masses were that she was a bully and mean in interviews and makes people cry etc. |
Anonymous
They come out with a bang, just being completely 100% factually wrong. They say they agreed to provide an intimacy coordinator. When we find out later, justin hired the intimacy coordinator during reproduction, texted Blake, I’m really excited about the intimacy coordinator I hired! And then proceeded to set up a meeting with her. To which Blake said, I’m good. I’ll wait till I get on set. Did you gather any of that from this first paragraph or did it look like she had to beg them for an intimacy coordinator? I’m sorry the article was really bad and I understood why he’s suing, even if he doesn’t win. This has not been good for the New York Times even if they prevail legally, and frankly, this is not been good for Megan, and she has weakened her reputation and made it harder for future women who want to come forward. |
Anonymous
| Is anyone else astonished by 1000 pages of texts? How is that possible? |
Anonymous
None of what they write is factually wrong. Regarding the intimacy coordinator, it says they agreed to hire a full-time intimacy coordinator, not that they didn't have one at all before. Even though they had an IC hired before the hiatus, it's not clear that she'd spent a single day on set, be abuse none of the scheduled sex scenes had been filmed yet. And Blake saying in preproduction she was fine to meet the IC on set doesn't negate the truth of that. It may add context, but that's what a subsequent article was for Also, if you read the emails Twohey sent to Wayfarer prior to publishing, she includes a ton of detail for verification. Had they wanted to, at that time, they could have offered the context you are talking about. They chose not to -- they chose to offer a single, vague paragraph via Bryan Freedman denying everything entirely and with a bunch of angry invective about Blake. And they made no indication that they had more specific context or that they wanted to provide it. They didn't even say "look, these situations are complex and your reporting is inaccurate, but we need more time to explain how," which might have changed how they framed it. They chose not to.. The allegation that the story was unfairly one sided doesn't work for me because Wayfarer chose to claim up and issue a flat denial immediately. They didn't take their chance to provide another side until they filed their lawsuit, which was duly reported as well. |
Anonymous
It looks like the PR folks text almost continuously. It probably took a long time to find the stuff that was actually relevant to the case. |
Anonymous
OK, except there’s no such thing as a full-time intimacy coordinator. They come on days when there are intimate scenes filmed. Do you really think an intimacy coordinator just hangs out on that all the time waiting in case they are needed? It’s just not how these things are done. The article and the complaint implied there was no intimacy coordinator until Blake complained. That was obviously proven to be false. |
Anonymous
I read I believe it was 9:46 PM was when the Baldoni team was given this information and they were given 12 hours to respond, and the article published at 10 AM the next morning. You might also recall the article was published on a holiday weekend. It’s quite possible at 10 o’clock on a Friday night people aren’t actively checking their emails. They could have found out they needed to respond the next morning. We now know they had been working with Blake’s team for months considering there was meta data back to October 31. There’s really no way to justify this. The times looks terrible here. |
Anonymous
Blake's 17-point list, which was part of NYT reporting requested to have a full time intimacy coordinator on set to accompany Blake at all times. Because part of her allegation was that Baldoni and Heath added intimacy to scenes not scripted that way, this was needed to protect her. And Wayfarer agreed to provide this. You can argue that was not necessary, but it's factually accurate. And no, it doesn't "imply" no IC had been hired at all. It just says that Blake requested and the studio agreed to provide a full time IC. Again, that is accurate. Had Wayfarer wanted to clarify that they engaged an IC in preproduction, they could have done so when specifically asked prior to publication. They didn't. What do you want the NYT to do? |
Anonymous
Wayfarer has multiple PR people (including a "crisis" specialist) at their disposal, and had already retained Bryan Freedman. And Abel provided a statement from Freedman just a couple hours after the requests for comment went out (they sent separate requests to everyone involved, but Abel sent the Freedman response on behalf of all parties, including Jed Wallace). They could have requested an interview, provided some of their own documentation, offered some of the context they'd include in their lawsuit later, etc. Wayfarer was prepared for those requests for comment and this is how they chose to respond. They did not even use their full time, they sent a quick response and that was it. BUT before the NYT published, there is a lot of evidence, that Bryan Freedman personally leaked a copy of the CRD complaint to TMZ. TMZ actually published the complaint before the NYT article le went live (this is likely why the NYT chose to publish at 10am instead of noon as they planned -- they were being scooped by a tabloid in a story they'd been working on for weeks). The TMZ story quotes Freedman directly. That TMZ article then got used as the source for a bunch of other outlets reporting on the complaint that day. So Freedman had time to leak the CRD complaint to TMZ and provide a statement to them, but not to provide clarifying info to the NYT's request for comment. Explain again how this was unfair to Wayfarer? |
Anonymous
Implication was that there was no I see. All over the Internet people were like what there was no I see that standard now? They have only implied there wasn’t one in it was deceptive. You can argue all you want, but people were confided. The fact that princess Blake needed an intimacy coordinator on set to protect her at all times is absolutely ludicrous. I actually think that is going to work against her as an unreasonable demand. That is in no way standard and I’ve never heard of any other actors asking for that. I am waiting for them to come out and blame it on severe postpartum depression. Blake seemed incredibly paranoid and thought that every man on that set was out to get her. |