Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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)."

This was really interesting, and a good example of how the work Jed Wallace did could have been responsible for the effect Lively saw without necessariy planting stories through Flaa etc. By juking the numbers of the negative stories against Lively it heightened their profile and made it seem like "Lively is a jerk" was the story. It certainly will be interesting to see what Wallace says.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

He didn’t need to run a smear campaign against her because her own behavior makes people hate her. The texts that establish that were omitted or manipulated. We don’t know if such texts were not provided to NY Times (other than the one they manipulated) or they made a deliberate choice to ignore them. That’s problematic and defamatory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think you support Blake because you too annoy people with your arrogance and wrongheadedness. Your opinion doesn’t get more weight than anyone else’s. We’ll see if it’s defamatory or not. Certainly peddling a story of sexual harassment and a non existent smear campaign based on the lies of a powerful egomaniac is problematic.

[Anonymous]

Just to give an example, here is a recent NY Post story about Lively: https://nypost.com/2025/02/25/entertainment/blake-lively-dance-scenes-with-ryan-reynolds-justin-baldoni-are-connected/

The story quotes posts on X that speculate Lively was trying to recreate a scene from the movie The Green Lantern (which she made with Ryan Reynolds, I think it's where they met) when she suggested she and Justin Baldoni talk during the dance scene. The article doesn't even identify the X users by name, just calls them "fans" (of what?). It links to the X posts in question.

The article doesn't lie. It accurately describes the commentary on X as "speculation" and a "conspiracy theory." The Post apparently reached out to Lively, Reynolds, and Baldoni but they declined to comment -- the article states as such. But the article gives the impression that it is strange or uncanny that the two movies feature similar scenes.

It also includes some true facts that lack proper context. For instance, the article says that Lively has confirmed Reynolds helped with IEWU and includes several quotes from Lively about his involvement. But the article fails to note that there is zero evidence Reynolds had anything to do with the dance scene.

Is this defamation? Could Lively sue the Post for creating the inference that she was attempting to recreate the movie The Green Lantern on the set of IEWU, with the support and assistance of her husband, when in fact there is not actual evidence that happened other than some speculative social media posts? They didn't actually talk to Lively and Reynolds before publishing. How much time did they give Lively and Reynolds to refute these claims? Was it days? Weeks? So it's defamation, right?

No. Because the article is factual. It doesn't actually say Lively and Reynolds did this, it just implies it and gives a lot of credence to idle online speculation. It uses terms like "allegedly" and other hedge words. It's reporting on things other people posted online, but doesn't assert those things as true. Is it great journalism? No, it's click bait. But is it defamation? No.

But if you can argue the NYT article is defamation, then this is too. And there are literally hundred of articles like this online about this case. Probably thousands, if you count foreign tabloids and the many blogs and outlets that just repackage existing media. Most of the articles linked in this thread are like this. There is very, very little journalism out there that is truly completely unbiased and that offers every bit of context than anyone could ever ask for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just to give an example, here is a recent NY Post story about Lively: https://nypost.com/2025/02/25/entertainment/blake-lively-dance-scenes-with-ryan-reynolds-justin-baldoni-are-connected/

The story quotes posts on X that speculate Lively was trying to recreate a scene from the movie The Green Lantern (which she made with Ryan Reynolds, I think it's where they met) when she suggested she and Justin Baldoni talk during the dance scene. The article doesn't even identify the X users by name, just calls them "fans" (of what?). It links to the X posts in question.

The article doesn't lie. It accurately describes the commentary on X as "speculation" and a "conspiracy theory." The Post apparently reached out to Lively, Reynolds, and Baldoni but they declined to comment -- the article states as such. But the article gives the impression that it is strange or uncanny that the two movies feature similar scenes.

It also includes some true facts that lack proper context. For instance, the article says that Lively has confirmed Reynolds helped with IEWU and includes several quotes from Lively about his involvement. But the article fails to note that there is zero evidence Reynolds had anything to do with the dance scene.

Is this defamation? Could Lively sue the Post for creating the inference that she was attempting to recreate the movie The Green Lantern on the set of IEWU, with the support and assistance of her husband, when in fact there is not actual evidence that happened other than some speculative social media posts? They didn't actually talk to Lively and Reynolds before publishing. How much time did they give Lively and Reynolds to refute these claims? Was it days? Weeks? So it's defamation, right?

No. Because the article is factual. It doesn't actually say Lively and Reynolds did this, it just implies it and gives a lot of credence to idle online speculation. It uses terms like "allegedly" and other hedge words. It's reporting on things other people posted online, but doesn't assert those things as true. Is it great journalism? No, it's click bait. But is it defamation? No.

But if you can argue the NYT article is defamation, then this is too. And there are literally hundred of articles like this online about this case. Probably thousands, if you count foreign tabloids and the many blogs and outlets that just repackage existing media. Most of the articles linked in this thread are like this. There is very, very little journalism out there that is truly completely unbiased and that offers every bit of context than anyone could ever ask for.

Now exactly is this defamatory? And how does this remotely relate to using someone’s texts out of context? I don’t see any reference to texts at all.

[Anonymous]

But if you can argue the NYT article is defamation, then this is too. And there are literally hundred of articles like this online about this case.

Not just this case, but every case and every news article. Every time you read "the Associated Press is reporting," "per accounts," "according to a source close to the situation," "the lawsuit states..." these are all examples of the reporters covering themselves, because they are reporting what was said, rather than the underlying facts. You will find thousands of such examples every day if you look for them.

This is so much more than just this case. These are basic tenets of defamation law in the US. It should not be assumed that anyone who thinks NYT will win is a Blake Lively supporter. It has nothing to do with her, it's just the example currently being discussed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But if you can argue the NYT article is defamation, then this is too. And there are literally hundred of articles like this online about this case.

Not just this case, but every case and every news article. Every time you read "the Associated Press is reporting," "per accounts," "according to a source close to the situation," "the lawsuit states..." these are all examples of the reporters covering themselves, because they are reporting what was said, rather than the underlying facts. You will find thousands of such examples every day if you look for them.

This is so much more than just this case. These are basic tenets of defamation law in the US. It should not be assumed that anyone who thinks NYT will win is a Blake Lively supporter. It has nothing to do with her, it's just the example currently being discussed.

First of all, fans think Green lantern dance and It Ends with Us dance are similar is not remotely defamatory.

Furthermore, had the NYTimes stuck to the allegations in the Complaint(and more frequently referenced that], they would have been fine. It’s their out of context use amd manipulation of the texts that is the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But if you can argue the NYT article is defamation, then this is too. And there are literally hundred of articles like this online about this case.

Not just this case, but every case and every news article. Every time you read "the Associated Press is reporting," "per accounts," "according to a source close to the situation," "the lawsuit states..." these are all examples of the reporters covering themselves, because they are reporting what was said, rather than the underlying facts. You will find thousands of such examples every day if you look for them.

This is so much more than just this case. These are basic tenets of defamation law in the US. It should not be assumed that anyone who thinks NYT will win is a Blake Lively supporter. It has nothing to do with her, it's just the example currently being discussed.

First of all, fans think Green lantern dance and It Ends with Us dance are similar is not remotely defamatory.

Furthermore, had the NYTimes stuck to the allegations in the Complaint(and more frequently referenced that], they would have been fine. It’s their out of context use amd manipulation of the texts that is the problem.

I wasn't commenting on the Green Lantern situation specificall, just the general scope. Once a precedent is set, it implicates more than this case.

I can agree that any independent reporting NYT does with the texts outside of the complaint is something they are responsible for, if it's ruled defamatory. FWIW, I believe their MTD states that all of the texts they quoted are also quoted in the complaint, though I have not gone through the quotes to verify that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But if you can argue the NYT article is defamation, then this is too. And there are literally hundred of articles like this online about this case.

Not just this case, but every case and every news article. Every time you read "the Associated Press is reporting," "per accounts," "according to a source close to the situation," "the lawsuit states..." these are all examples of the reporters covering themselves, because they are reporting what was said, rather than the underlying facts. You will find thousands of such examples every day if you look for them.

This is so much more than just this case. These are basic tenets of defamation law in the US. It should not be assumed that anyone who thinks NYT will win is a Blake Lively supporter. It has nothing to do with her, it's just the example currently being discussed.

First of all, fans think Green lantern dance and It Ends with Us dance are similar is not remotely defamatory.

Furthermore, had the NYTimes stuck to the allegations in the Complaint(and more frequently referenced that], they would have been fine. It’s their out of context use amd manipulation of the texts that is the problem.

I wasn't commenting on the Green Lantern situation specificall, just the general scope. Once a precedent is set, it implicates more than this case.

I can agree that any independent reporting NYT does with the texts outside of the complaint is something they are responsible for, if it's ruled defamatory. FWIW, I believe their MTD states that all of the texts they
quoted are also quoted in the complaint, though I have not gone through the quotes to verify that.

The NY Times specifically stated in the article that they independently reviewed all of the texts. In my opinion, that takes them out of the fair report doctrine’s protection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But if you can argue the NYT article is defamation, then this is too. And there are literally hundred of articles like this online about this case.

Not just this case, but every case and every news article. Every time you read "the Associated Press is reporting," "per accounts," "according to a source close to the situation," "the lawsuit states..." these are all examples of the reporters covering themselves, because they are reporting what was said, rather than the underlying facts. You will find thousands of such examples every day if you look for them.

This is so much more than just this case. These are basic tenets of defamation law in the US. It should not be assumed that anyone who thinks NYT will win is a Blake Lively supporter. It has nothing to do with her, it's just the example currently being discussed.

First of all, fans think Green lantern dance and It Ends with Us dance are similar is not remotely defamatory.

Furthermore, had the NYTimes stuck to the allegations in the Complaint(and more frequently referenced that], they would have been fine. It’s their out of context use amd manipulation of the texts that is the problem.

I wasn't commenting on the Green Lantern situation specificall, just the general scope. Once a precedent is set, it implicates more than this case.

I can agree that any independent reporting NYT does with the texts outside of the complaint is something they are responsible for, if it's ruled defamatory. FWIW, I believe their MTD states that all of the texts they
quoted are also quoted in the complaint, though I have not gone through the quotes to verify that.

The NY Times specifically stated in the article that they independently reviewed all of the texts. In my opinion, that takes them out of the fair report doctrine’s protection.

They cited cases supporting their position that the fair report doctrine applies regardless of what other news gathering they conducted. So we'll have to see if Freedman can come up with precedents where conducting their own independent review and failing to report on different contextual interpretations that may look better for the defendant was considered defamatory by a court.

I understand why you hold the opinion that you do. It's reasonable. By quoting at length from the complaint and the texts, NYT attempts to give the complaint and the texts more credibility when they say they also reviewed thousands of texts. It makes it sound as though this is the result of their independent investigations and not just parroting Lively, even though they are pretty much just parroting her with a very cursory attempt to seek comment from Baldoni on an extremely unreasonable holiday weekend deadline. I'm not defending that. I just don’t believe it meets the legal standard for defamation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to give an example, here is a recent NY Post story about Lively: https://nypost.com/2025/02/25/entertainment/blake-lively-dance-scenes-with-ryan-reynolds-justin-baldoni-are-connected/

The story quotes posts on X that speculate Lively was trying to recreate a scene from the movie The Green Lantern (which she made with Ryan Reynolds, I think it's where they met) when she suggested she and Justin Baldoni talk during the dance scene. The article doesn't even identify the X users by name, just calls them "fans" (of what?). It links to the X posts in question.

The article doesn't lie. It accurately describes the commentary on X as "speculation" and a "conspiracy theory." The Post apparently reached out to Lively, Reynolds, and Baldoni but they declined to comment -- the article states as such. But the article gives the impression that it is strange or uncanny that the two movies feature similar scenes.

It also includes some true facts that lack proper context. For instance, the article says that Lively has confirmed Reynolds helped with IEWU and includes several quotes from Lively about his involvement. But the article fails to note that there is zero evidence Reynolds had anything to do with the dance scene.

Is this defamation? Could Lively sue the Post for creating the inference that she was attempting to recreate the movie The Green Lantern on the set of IEWU, with the support and assistance of her husband, when in fact there is not actual evidence that happened other than some speculative social media posts? They didn't actually talk to Lively and Reynolds before publishing. How much time did they give Lively and Reynolds to refute these claims? Was it days? Weeks? So it's defamation, right?

No. Because the article is factual. It doesn't actually say Lively and Reynolds did this, it just implies it and gives a lot of credence to idle online speculation. It uses terms like "allegedly" and other hedge words. It's reporting on things other people posted online, but doesn't assert those things as true. Is it great journalism? No, it's click bait. But is it defamation? No.

But if you can argue the NYT article is defamation, then this is too. And there are literally hundred of articles like this online about this case. Probably thousands, if you count foreign tabloids and the many blogs and outlets that just repackage existing media. Most of the articles linked in this thread are like this. There is very, very little journalism out there that is truly completely unbiased and that offers every bit of context than anyone could ever ask for.

Now exactly is this defamatory? And how does this remotely relate to using someone’s texts out of context? I don’t see any reference to texts at all.

It's not defamatory. That's the whole point.

There are not text but they quote X posts at length. And they don't include all the context. I don't subscribe to X so I can't see all the comments (and cannot independently verify, which in itself is a problem) but there are 81 comments on that post on X. No idea how many were posted as of publication of this article, but probably more than a few, which is all the article goes on to quote. Did any of the comments on the post proffer a different opinion? If so, why weren't they included? Under the standard some of you are arguing for defamation, wouldn't the NY Post be obligated to include all opinions on the theory? They can't just cherry pick the ones that support the thesis of the article, right?

I don't think the NY Post article is defamatory at all. I think it's dumb, but that's beside the point. What I'm trying to say is that the standard for defamation some of you are arguing because you want to see Baldoni prevail in this case would, if applied to all journalists, make almost every outlet guilty of defamation. While I personally wouldn't miss vapid, pointless article like this one, it would have a massive cooling effect on the media. They wouldn't want to report on pending litigation at all, and there would be far less interest in doing investigatory journalism because the risk would be too high. Stories like the Boston Globe's reporting on the Catholic Church covering up child abuse? It would not be worth investigating or reporting because if you take even one minor thing out of context, even in a way that does not actually change the overall meaning or conclusions to be drawn, you could be sued. And organizations like the Catholic Church, with deep pockets and plenty of lawyers at their disposal, are exactly who would take advantage of this. Or, I don't know, the Trump administration?

I think some of you are too fixated on this case and don't realize these arguments you are making are insanely risky. Baldoni can go fight Lively in the courts. Let them duke it out and via a trial or settlement, they can figure out who wronged who and for how much. But The NY Times didn't defame Baldoni. They reported on litigation pending against him. Was their reporting biased? Yup, it looks like it was, a bit. But that's not illegal and we don't want it to be illegal. Was the Boston Globe's reporting biased against the Catholic Church? Probably, yeah -- I think by the time they published, those journalists were pretty disgusted with the church and ready to expose it in a way that went beyond neutrality. It's hard for human beings to be truly neutral. But I want human reporters with all their personal biases and opinions out there investigating corruptions, lawlessness, hypocrisy and malfeasance. Even if sometimes the result is a bit misleading. You know what would be far more misleading? Silence. And that's what we'll get if this is ruled defamation. Deafening silence.

[Anonymous]

It seems like Freedman had to sue the Times to make a point. Feels like the right PR move to do even if nothing else. Certainly it’s gotten the public to discuss how outrageous and one sided the article.

In the end, it helps Baldoni. It gave them fuel to publish the website with all those ridiculous texts. And when Blake’s team cries “stop litigating this in public!” They just look dumb and hypocritical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems like Freedman had to sue the Times to make a point. Feels like the right PR move to do even if nothing else. Certainly it’s gotten the public to discuss how outrageous and one sided the article.

In the end, it helps Baldoni. It gave them fuel to publish the website with all those ridiculous texts. And when Blake’s team cries “stop litigating this in public!” They just look dumb and hypocritical.

Did you know that filing a lawsuit for which you have no legal basis or facts to support is actually a violation of legal ethics rules? Filing lawsuits for PR purposes or to "make a point" when you don't have legal basis to do so also costs taxpayers money and clogs up the courts. And filing frivolous defamation lawsuits against news outlets costs them money at a time when the news media already struggles with profitability. The NYT is better positioned to defend this kind of lawsuit than most outlets and will do so vigorously to help defend the free press, but to argue that it was necessary to file this suit to "make a point" is an incredibly myopic view. Believe it or not, there are more important things in the world right now than the Hollywood career of Justin Baldoni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like Freedman had to sue the Times to make a point. Feels like the right PR move to do even if nothing else. Certainly it’s gotten the public to discuss how outrageous and one sided the article.

In the end, it helps Baldoni. It gave them fuel to publish the website with all those ridiculous texts. And when Blake’s team cries “stop litigating this in public!” They just look dumb and hypocritical.

Did you know that filing a lawsuit for which you have no legal basis or facts to support is actually a violation of legal ethics rules? Filing lawsuits for PR purposes or to "make a point" when you don't have legal basis to do so also costs taxpayers money and clogs up the courts. And filing frivolous defamation lawsuits against news outlets costs them money at a time when the news media already struggles with profitability. The NYT is better positioned to defend this kind of lawsuit than most outlets and will do so vigorously to help defend the free press, but to argue that it was necessary to file this suit to "make a point" is an incredibly myopic view. Believe it or not, there are more important things in the world right now than the Hollywood career of Justin Baldoni.

Hmmm…I wasn’t implying it was frivolous at all, just acknowledging I understand they might lose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like Freedman had to sue the Times to make a point. Feels like the right PR move to do even if nothing else. Certainly it’s gotten the public to discuss how outrageous and one sided the article.

In the end, it helps Baldoni. It gave them fuel to publish the website with all those ridiculous texts. And when Blake’s team cries “stop litigating this in public!” They just look dumb and hypocritical.

Did you know that filing a lawsuit for which you have no legal basis or facts to support is actually a violation of legal ethics rules? Filing lawsuits for PR purposes or to "make a point" when you don't have legal basis to do so also costs taxpayers money and clogs up the courts. And filing frivolous defamation lawsuits against news outlets costs them money at a time when the news media already struggles with profitability. The NYT is better positioned to defend this kind of lawsuit than most outlets and will do so vigorously to help defend the free press, but to argue that it was necessary to file this suit to "make a point" is an incredibly myopic view. Believe it or not, there are more important things in the world right now than the Hollywood career of Justin Baldoni.

You are obnoxious as hell and doubling down on everything. I’m betting it’s important to Justin Baldoni and the employees of his company and their families.

He was dropped from his agency and lost his podcast within hours of this article posting.