Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I disagree that the New York Times presented 100% correct facts. We know that with Justin’s lawsuit, there were several lies in Blake’s complaints that were reported as facts and not checked with anyone else.

It is 100% factually correct to say, Justin Baldoni hired an intimacy coordinator, and Blake lively refused to meet with her.

I’m sure Blake supporters are going, but but but you are leaving out context! She didn’t want to meet in preproduction. But it’s 100% factually correct. And that is what the times did, some of the facts were so skewed without context.

What the times also did is list incidents that defy the reasonable standard of sexual harassment. For example, intimacy coordinators have come out and said they are not needed on set when there is no nudity or sexual simulation. For Blake to demand one on set every day is unreasonable and not a standard.

Good thing that “100% factually correct” is not the standard for public figure defamation. it’s not even the standard for regular defamation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a lawyer, but I guess I just don’t understand why someone is saying the New York Times printed facts so can’t be defamatory.

Doesn’t the context matter here? A man is at a workplace and bites into a piece of pizza and says that is HOT! A woman who works with him is standing nearby and gets offended because she believes he is sexually harassing her.

Fact, he did say that, but the contact matters right? I feel like the New York Times and Blake left out a ton of context about many of the things she listed.

This is incredibly reductive, it's impossible to take seriously. Lively was not alleging a single incident of a coworker saying the word hot in her presence. She also has documentation of much of the alleged behavior and was putting her money where her mouth was and actually filing a lawsuit, which is by itself a newsworthy event.

And NYT did offer Wayfarer a chance to or vide context. Twohey sent them emails that list substantially all of the allegations against them. They chose not to provide any context, issued a blanket denial of everything, and accused Lively of lying. And that statement was duly reported as well.

Are you sure you even know what objectivity is?

Calm down. I wasn’t being reductive because I actually wasn’t talking anything to do with the lively case. I was using an example and actually forgotten that there was a part of the case where lively absurdly claimed that he was remarking about the temperature and she just assumed he was talking about her. God she is truly an insufferable moron.

Anyway, I was just using a that as a that as an example of how a statement could be used out of context. You never explained why leaving out critical context isn’t important. And skews the facts to where it’s not factual anymore.

It is absurd to me that anyone would criticize Baldoni‘s team’s response to this. The times had worked with lively for months as we now know. They contacted his team at 9:46 on Friday night of a holiday weekend. Had he even retained Freedman at this point? Blake and her team of lawyers have been working for months. He didn’t have a lawyer for this case yet, it’s my understanding he was basically finding out with the rest of the world?

Since you asked: yes Freedman was already working for Baldoni at that point, potentially for a while. The Times contacted Baldoni, Heath, Abel, Nathan, and Wallace directly for comment (the emails from Twohey to all of them were filed as attachments to the Times MTD). Only Abel responded, with a prepared statement from Freedman that she said was on behalf of all parties. Twohey clarified "even Jed Wallace" and Abel said yes.

Also Nathan has worked with Freedman in the past and actually suggested to Wayfarer that they reach out to "BF" in those August texts.

So no, your understanding is incorrect. Baldoni and everyone at Wayfarer was on notice to the chances Lively would go public with her allegations for almost a year. She'd already threatened to go to the Times before, when she was refusing to do promotion with Baldoni. This wasn't a surprise at all, Baldoni and everyone else involved was fully ready for it, and he'd already retained a lawyer and, it must be noted, a crisis PR team.

By the way, knowing a bit about how Freedman operates, I think there's a good chance he's the one who suggested Baldoni and the Wayfarer people take photos "in the basement" at the premiere. They were planning the "she stole my movie!" defense from the jump and those photos are "proof." But, since some of you are sticklers for context, it must be noted that they didn't actually spend the premiere in the basement -- they walked the red carpet, did interviews, and watched a screening of the movie in a regular theater just like Lively et al did. It's just that they spent some amount of time in a basement holding area while the rest of the cast walked the carpet, since the entire rest of the cast (not just Lively) and Colleen Hoover had told Sony they refused to appear on the red carpet with Baldoni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree that the New York Times presented 100% correct facts. We know that with Justin’s lawsuit, there were several lies in Blake’s complaints that were reported as facts and not checked with anyone else.

It is 100% factually correct to say, Justin Baldoni hired an intimacy coordinator, and Blake lively refused to meet with her.

I’m sure Blake supporters are going, but but but you are leaving out context! She didn’t want to meet in preproduction. But it’s 100% factually correct. And that is what the times did, some of the facts were so skewed without context.

What the times also did is list incidents that defy the reasonable standard of sexual harassment. For example, intimacy coordinators have come out and said they are not needed on set when there is no nudity or sexual simulation. For Blake to demand one on set every day is unreasonable and not a standard.

On the bolded. Yes exactly. This is missing context but isn't defamatory. It's skewed but not legally actionable. It's not about being a Blake supporter. I'm sure there are many articles describing what Baldoni said about her campaign to steal his movie, which are not defamation if they reported in a similar way as NYT.

This is such a good point. If Baldoni wins his case against the New York Times, or even obtains a favorable settlement, Lively should immediately file lawsuits against the Daily Mail, the New York Post, the Hollywood Reporter, etc., for publishing truthful but biased reporting about her. If what the NYT did is defamation, then Lively is being defamed constantly in multiple outlets! She's also being defamed here, so I hope everyone's using an untraceable VPN. Otherwise, you're next. Make sure you include "both sides" context in all comments and no opinion at all. Also statements like "Lively is an ugly whore" might be defamatory.

[Anonymous]

This is pretty interesting, on the methods that Jed Wallace might have used to sway public opinion towards Lively online. It's a post from a Substack writer about how a pretty benign post of his from August 13th (that happened to pan the Deadpool movie and make a crack about IEWU at least being "based on a book", and which had a photo of Lively and Baldoni as its header) resulted in bizarre and record numbers for his newsletter. The author had assumed it was some bizarre fluke at the time, but then put two and two together when the NYT story broke.

https://vincemancini.substack.com/p/blake-lively-smear-campaign-boosted-my-post

Here's the part that's interesting to me:

"I took a closer look at those email numbers. They revealed that the vast majority of the traffic was coming from one single email address — [e-mail]. This email address isn’t connected to anyone I know, so far as I can tell, and the only Google result I found for it was a Spam report which seems to be related to phishing.

Between August 13th, when the post was written, and September 15th, This one subscriber had opened the same email almost 60,000 times, from 194 different devices. On August 15th, it was opened 2,058 times. On August 16th, 951 times. On August 17th, 641 times. And so forth. (These were painstaking numbers to collect, since they show up 10 at a time, and I would have to manually scroll to get them to keep populating — just the August 15 numbers felt like they took an entire morning, 200 manual scrolls. I never got to the bottom of the August 14th numbers, it’s more than four thousand)."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not a lawyer, but I guess I just don’t understand why someone is saying the New York Times printed facts so can’t be defamatory.

Doesn’t the context matter here? A man is at a workplace and bites into a piece of pizza and says that is HOT! A woman who works with him is standing nearby and gets offended because she believes he is sexually harassing her.

Fact, he did say that, but the contact matters right? I feel like the New York Times and Blake left out a ton of context about many of the things she listed.

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a lawyer, but I guess I just don’t understand why someone is saying the New York Times printed facts so can’t be defamatory.

Doesn’t the context matter here? A man is at a workplace and bites into a piece of pizza and says that is HOT! A woman who works with him is standing nearby and gets offended because she believes he is sexually harassing her.

Fact, he did say that, but the contact matters right? I feel like the New York Times and Blake left out a ton of context about many of the things she listed.

This is incredibly reductive, it's impossible to take seriously. Lively was not alleging a single incident of a coworker saying the word hot in her presence. She also has documentation of much of the alleged behavior and was putting her money where her mouth was and actually filing a lawsuit, which is by itself a newsworthy event.

And NYT did offer Wayfarer a chance to or vide context. Twohey sent them emails that list substantially all of the allegations against them. They chose not to provide any context, issued a blanket denial of everything, and accused Lively of lying. And that statement was duly reported as well.

Are you sure you even know what objectivity is?

Perhaps when one plans on using someone’s texts as the basis for an expose, they should be required to actually speak with the person before reporting on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree that the New York Times presented 100% correct facts. We know that with Justin’s lawsuit, there were several lies in Blake’s complaints that were reported as facts and not checked with anyone else.

It is 100% factually correct to say, Justin Baldoni hired an intimacy coordinator, and Blake lively refused to meet with her.

I’m sure Blake supporters are going, but but but you are leaving out context! She didn’t want to meet in preproduction. But it’s 100% factually correct. And that is what the times did, some of the facts were so skewed without context.

What the times also did is list incidents that defy the reasonable standard of sexual harassment. For example, intimacy coordinators have come out and said they are not needed on set when there is no nudity or sexual simulation. For Blake to demand one on set every day is unreasonable and not a standard.

On the bolded. Yes exactly. This is missing context but isn't defamatory. It's skewed but not legally actionable. It's not about being a Blake supporter. I'm sure there are many articles describing what Baldoni said about her campaign to steal his movie, which are not defamation if they reported in a similar way as NYT.

Exactly. If the NYT piece is defamation then 90% of what has been written and said about this conflict is defamatory.

Hard disagree here. Most of the coverage I’ve seen includes a disclaimer that that reporter has not reviewed the emails and texts and cannot vouch for their accuracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a lawyer, but I guess I just don’t understand why someone is saying the New York Times printed facts so can’t be defamatory.

Doesn’t the context matter here? A man is at a workplace and bites into a piece of pizza and says that is HOT! A woman who works with him is standing nearby and gets offended because she believes he is sexually harassing her.

Fact, he did say that, but the contact matters right? I feel like the New York Times and Blake left out a ton of context about many of the things she listed.

This is incredibly reductive, it's impossible to take seriously. Lively was not alleging a single incident of a coworker saying the word hot in her presence. She also has documentation of much of the alleged behavior and was putting her money where her mouth was and actually filing a lawsuit, which is by itself a newsworthy event.

And NYT did offer Wayfarer a chance to or vide context. Twohey sent them emails that list substantially all of the allegations against them. They chose not to provide any context, issued a blanket denial of everything, and accused Lively of lying. And that statement was duly reported as well.

Are you sure you even know what objectivity is?

Perhaps when one plans on using someone’s texts as the basis for an expose, they should be required to actually speak with the person before reporting on them.

Why? If the texts are authenticated as real, why would this be "required"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree that the New York Times presented 100% correct facts. We know that with Justin’s lawsuit, there were several lies in Blake’s complaints that were reported as facts and not checked with anyone else.

It is 100% factually correct to say, Justin Baldoni hired an intimacy coordinator, and Blake lively refused to meet with her.

I’m sure Blake supporters are going, but but but you are leaving out context! She didn’t want to meet in preproduction. But it’s 100% factually correct. And that is what the times did, some of the facts were so skewed without context.

What the times also did is list incidents that defy the reasonable standard of sexual harassment. For example, intimacy coordinators have come out and said they are not needed on set when there is no nudity or sexual simulation. For Blake to demand one on set every day is unreasonable and not a standard.

On the bolded. Yes exactly. This is missing context but isn't defamatory. It's skewed but not legally actionable. It's not about being a Blake supporter. I'm sure there are many articles describing what Baldoni said about her campaign to steal his movie, which are not defamation if they reported in a similar way as NYT.

This is such a good point. If Baldoni wins his case against the New York Times, or even obtains a favorable settlement, Lively should immediately file lawsuits against the Daily Mail, the New York Post, the Hollywood Reporter, etc., for publishing truthful but biased reporting about her. If what the NYT did is defamation, then Lively is being defamed constantly in multiple outlets! She's also being defamed here, so I hope everyone's using an untraceable VPN. Otherwise, you're next. Make sure you include "both sides" context in all comments and no opinion at all. Also statements like "Lively is an ugly whore" might be defamatory.

Give us an example of such an article. Because this just isn’t so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a lawyer, but I guess I just don’t understand why someone is saying the New York Times printed facts so can’t be defamatory.

Doesn’t the context matter here? A man is at a workplace and bites into a piece of pizza and says that is HOT! A woman who works with him is standing nearby and gets offended because she believes he is sexually harassing her.

Fact, he did say that, but the contact matters right? I feel like the New York Times and Blake left out a ton of context about many of the things she listed.

This is incredibly reductive, it's impossible to take seriously. Lively was not alleging a single incident of a coworker saying the word hot in her presence. She also has documentation of much of the alleged behavior and was putting her money where her mouth was and actually filing a lawsuit, which is by itself a newsworthy event.

And NYT did offer Wayfarer a chance to or vide context. Twohey sent them emails that list substantially all of the allegations against them. They chose not to provide any context, issued a blanket denial of everything, and accused Lively of lying. And that statement was duly reported as well.

Are you sure you even know what objectivity is?

Perhaps when one plans on using someone’s texts as the basis for an expose, they should be required to actually speak with the person before reporting on them.

Why? If the texts are authenticated as real, why would this be "required"?

Because texts can be manipulated and taken out of context in a way that is defamatory, see the New York Times article. It isn’t as if the reporter here didn’t have time, she had already spent months meeting with Blake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree that the New York Times presented 100% correct facts. We know that with Justin’s lawsuit, there were several lies in Blake’s complaints that were reported as facts and not checked with anyone else.

It is 100% factually correct to say, Justin Baldoni hired an intimacy coordinator, and Blake lively refused to meet with her.

I’m sure Blake supporters are going, but but but you are leaving out context! She didn’t want to meet in preproduction. But it’s 100% factually correct. And that is what the times did, some of the facts were so skewed without context.

What the times also did is list incidents that defy the reasonable standard of sexual harassment. For example, intimacy coordinators have come out and said they are not needed on set when there is no nudity or sexual simulation. For Blake to demand one on set every day is unreasonable and not a standard.

On the bolded. Yes exactly. This is missing context but isn't defamatory. It's skewed but not legally actionable. It's not about being a Blake supporter. I'm sure there are many articles describing what Baldoni said about her campaign to steal his movie, which are not defamation if they reported in a similar way as NYT.

Exactly. If the NYT piece is defamation then 90% of what has been written and said about this conflict is defamatory.

Hard disagree here. Most of the coverage I’ve seen includes a disclaimer that that reporter has not reviewed the emails and texts and cannot vouch for their accuracy.

But the NYT actually did review the emails and texts they published and verified their accuracy. So no such disclaimer was needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree that the New York Times presented 100% correct facts. We know that with Justin’s lawsuit, there were several lies in Blake’s complaints that were reported as facts and not checked with anyone else.

It is 100% factually correct to say, Justin Baldoni hired an intimacy coordinator, and Blake lively refused to meet with her.

I’m sure Blake supporters are going, but but but you are leaving out context! She didn’t want to meet in preproduction. But it’s 100% factually correct. And that is what the times did, some of the facts were so skewed without context.

What the times also did is list incidents that defy the reasonable standard of sexual harassment. For example, intimacy coordinators have come out and said they are not needed on set when there is no nudity or sexual simulation. For Blake to demand one on set every day is unreasonable and not a standard.

On the bolded. Yes exactly. This is missing context but isn't defamatory. It's skewed but not legally actionable. It's not about being a Blake supporter. I'm sure there are many articles describing what Baldoni said about her campaign to steal his movie, which are not defamation if they reported in a similar way as NYT.

This is such a good point. If Baldoni wins his case against the New York Times, or even obtains a favorable settlement, Lively should immediately file lawsuits against the Daily Mail, the New York Post, the Hollywood Reporter, etc., for publishing truthful but biased reporting about her. If what the NYT did is defamation, then Lively is being defamed constantly in multiple outlets! She's also being defamed here, so I hope everyone's using an untraceable VPN. Otherwise, you're next. Make sure you include "both sides" context in all comments and no opinion at all. Also statements like "Lively is an ugly whore" might be defamatory.

DCUM is the same as The NY Times with respect to journalistic responsibilities in your mind? Explains a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree that the New York Times presented 100% correct facts. We know that with Justin’s lawsuit, there were several lies in Blake’s complaints that were reported as facts and not checked with anyone else.

It is 100% factually correct to say, Justin Baldoni hired an intimacy coordinator, and Blake lively refused to meet with her.

I’m sure Blake supporters are going, but but but you are leaving out context! She didn’t want to meet in preproduction. But it’s 100% factually correct. And that is what the times did, some of the facts were so skewed without context.

What the times also did is list incidents that defy the reasonable standard of sexual harassment. For example, intimacy coordinators have come out and said they are not needed on set when there is no nudity or sexual simulation. For Blake to demand one on set every day is unreasonable and not a standard.

On the bolded. Yes exactly. This is missing context but isn't defamatory. It's skewed but not legally actionable. It's not about being a Blake supporter. I'm sure there are many articles describing what Baldoni said about her campaign to steal his movie, which are not defamation if they reported in a similar way as NYT.

Exactly. If the NYT piece is defamation then 90% of what has been written and said about this conflict is defamatory.

Hard disagree here. Most of the coverage I’ve seen includes a disclaimer that that reporter has not reviewed the emails and texts and cannot vouch for their accuracy.

But the NYT actually did review the emails and texts they published and verified their accuracy. So no such disclaimer was needed.

Without the disclaimer, it’s actionable if they are presented in a way that changes their meaning. So yes, the NYTimes is differently situated than every other media outlet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a lawyer, but I guess I just don’t understand why someone is saying the New York Times printed facts so can’t be defamatory.

Doesn’t the context matter here? A man is at a workplace and bites into a piece of pizza and says that is HOT! A woman who works with him is standing nearby and gets offended because she believes he is sexually harassing her.

Fact, he did say that, but the contact matters right? I feel like the New York Times and Blake left out a ton of context about many of the things she listed.

This is incredibly reductive, it's impossible to take seriously. Lively was not alleging a single incident of a coworker saying the word hot in her presence. She also has documentation of much of the alleged behavior and was putting her money where her mouth was and actually filing a lawsuit, which is by itself a newsworthy event.

And NYT did offer Wayfarer a chance to or vide context. Twohey sent them emails that list substantially all of the allegations against them. They chose not to provide any context, issued a blanket denial of everything, and accused Lively of lying. And that statement was duly reported as well.

Are you sure you even know what objectivity is?

Perhaps when one plans on using someone’s texts as the basis for an expose, they should be required to actually speak with the person before reporting on them.

Why? If the texts are authenticated as real, why would this be "required"?

Because texts can be manipulated and taken out of context in a way that is defamatory, see the New York Times article. It isn’t as if the reporter here didn’t have time, she had already spent months meeting with Blake.

The New York Times article is not defamatory.

The very minor additional context that has been provided for those texts does not change their meaning. Did Baldoni hire a crisis PR team to help him tank Lively's reputation online? Yes. Does the existence of a single upside down emoji that was apparently stripped form a text by a text-extraction software change that? No it does not. The additional context does not change what happened. Wayfarer hired Abel and then Nathan and later Jed Wallace to help them torpedo Lively's reputation online.

What context has been provided that challenges that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree that the New York Times presented 100% correct facts. We know that with Justin’s lawsuit, there were several lies in Blake’s complaints that were reported as facts and not checked with anyone else.

It is 100% factually correct to say, Justin Baldoni hired an intimacy coordinator, and Blake lively refused to meet with her.

I’m sure Blake supporters are going, but but but you are leaving out context! She didn’t want to meet in preproduction. But it’s 100% factually correct. And that is what the times did, some of the facts were so skewed without context.

What the times also did is list incidents that defy the reasonable standard of sexual harassment. For example, intimacy coordinators have come out and said they are not needed on set when there is no nudity or sexual simulation. For Blake to demand one on set every day is unreasonable and not a standard.

On the bolded. Yes exactly. This is missing context but isn't defamatory. It's skewed but not legally actionable. It's not about being a Blake supporter. I'm sure there are many articles describing what Baldoni said about her campaign to steal his movie, which are not defamation if they reported in a similar way as NYT.

Exactly. If the NYT piece is defamation then 90% of what has been written and said about this conflict is defamatory.

Hard disagree here. Most of the coverage I’ve seen includes a disclaimer that that reporter has not reviewed the emails and texts and cannot vouch for their accuracy.

But the NYT actually did review the emails and texts they published and verified their accuracy. So no such disclaimer was needed.

Without the disclaimer, it’s actionable if they are presented in a way that changes their meaning. So yes, the NYTimes is differently situated than every other media outlet.

It is not. The NYT will win this lawsuit, which should never have been filed. The story is not defamatory. Please stop using words like "actionable" when you dont' actually know what they mean.