Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

I've vigorously defended NYT but I wouldn't call this suit frivolous. Even if NYT wins the MTD in full I wouldn't say there was zero basis for the suit.

[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.

The audacity of calling Justin Baldoni’s lawsuit frivolous, while not acknowledging that Blake is falsely accusing a man of sexual harassment and laughably blaming him on the failure of another one of her many business ventures, when she has a trail of failed business ventures in her wake. The humiliating fall of her racist lifestyle brand, a production company that she was never able to get off the ground, the biggest box office bomb in history with the rhythm section, and her hairstyle line which was failing from the start with people complaining about the tone deaf packaging that doesn’t make sense and can’t fit in normal people’s showers, as well as the fact that nobody really likes Blake’s hair, and most people think she should just buy a hairbrush.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Following up on these under-the-radar ways of manipulating social media and people's attention, someone wrote a substack about the Flaa video and subsequent edits to Flaa's wikipedia page where the author concludes that (1) Flaa probably was not involved directly with Wallace in posting the video; but (2) it's possible that a PR rep who works for Authority magazine, who has apparent ties to Jed Wallace, may have edited a Wikipedia page about Flaa either at Wallace's request to to get Wallace's favor -- and wrote that Wikipedia page in a pro-Flaa and Anti-Lively tone that doesn't match Wikipedia guidelines. (The author of this substack himself also edited the Flaa wikipedia page and gets angry comments by Baldoni fans after the first article as being a Lively shill, so I guess read with caution, but I found the info interesting.)

https://edithistory.substack.com/p/was-wikipedia-manipulated-as-part

and same author wrote a substack about how the author of Flaa's wikipedia article got banned from wikipedia, possibly because Authority magazine boasts an abiity to get its top tier clients a wikipedia page: https://edithistory.substack.com/p/the-creator-of-kjersti-flaas-article

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The audacity of calling Justin Baldoni’s lawsuit frivolous, while not acknowledging that Blake is falsely accusing a man of sexual harassment and laughably blaming him on the failure of another one of her many business ventures, when she has a trail of failed business ventures in her wake. The humiliating fall of her racist lifestyle brand, a production company that she was never able to get off the ground, the biggest box office bomb in history with the rhythm section, and her hairstyle line which was failing from the start with people complaining about the tone deaf packaging that doesn’t make sense and can’t fit in normal people’s showers, as well as the fact that nobody really likes Blake’s hair, and most people think she should just buy a hairbrush.

I think the SH allegations in Lively's lawsuit are real and actionable. I don't have an opinion on her hair or box office track record.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The audacity of calling Justin Baldoni’s lawsuit frivolous, while not acknowledging that Blake is falsely accusing a man of sexual harassment and laughably blaming him on the failure of another one of her many business ventures, when she has a trail of failed business ventures in her wake. The humiliating fall of her racist lifestyle brand, a production company that she was never able to get off the ground, the biggest box office bomb in history with the rhythm section, and her hairstyle line which was failing from the start with people complaining about the tone deaf packaging that doesn’t make sense and can’t fit in normal people’s showers, as well as the fact that nobody really likes Blake’s hair, and most people think she should just buy a hairbrush.

I think the SH allegations in Lively's lawsuit are real and actionable. I don't have an opinion on her hair or box office track record.

And I along with most of the public, and Taylor Swift apparently, think the allegations are total BS.

Your opinion, or lack of one, on her box office failures or hair care products have no relevance to the case, but thanks for weighing in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The audacity of calling Justin Baldoni’s lawsuit frivolous, while not acknowledging that Blake is falsely accusing a man of sexual harassment and laughably blaming him on the failure of another one of her many business ventures, when she has a trail of failed business ventures in her wake. The humiliating fall of her racist lifestyle brand, a production company that she was never able to get off the ground, the biggest box office bomb in history with the rhythm section, and her hairstyle line which was failing from the start with people complaining about the tone deaf packaging that doesn’t make sense and can’t fit in normal people’s showers, as well as the fact that nobody really likes Blake’s hair, and most people think she should just buy a hairbrush.

I think the SH allegations in Lively's lawsuit are real and actionable. I don't have an opinion on her hair or box office track record.

And I along with most of the public, and Taylor Swift apparently, think the allegations are total BS.

Your opinion, or lack of one, on her box office failures or hair care products have no relevance to the case, but thanks for weighing in.

Most of the public doesn't care about this at all. Have you noticed that our democracy is being dismantled? But do go on speculating about what Taylor Swift thinks about her friend's legal issues and insulting people who don't share your precise opinion on a topic you actually know a lot less about than you seem to think, I'm sure that will help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The audacity of calling Justin Baldoni’s lawsuit frivolous, while not acknowledging that Blake is falsely accusing a man of sexual harassment and laughably blaming him on the failure of another one of her many business ventures, when she has a trail of failed business ventures in her wake. The humiliating fall of her racist lifestyle brand, a production company that she was never able to get off the ground, the biggest box office bomb in history with the rhythm section, and her hairstyle line which was failing from the start with people complaining about the tone deaf packaging that doesn’t make sense and can’t fit in normal people’s showers, as well as the fact that nobody really likes Blake’s hair, and most people think she should just buy a hairbrush.

I think the SH allegations in Lively's lawsuit are real and actionable. I don't have an opinion on her hair or box office track record.

And I along with most of the public, and Taylor Swift apparently, think the allegations are total BS.

Your opinion, or lack of one, on her box office failures or hair care products have no relevance to the case, but thanks for weighing in.

Most of the public doesn't care about this at all. Have you noticed that our democracy is being dismantled? But do go on speculating about what Taylor Swift thinks about her friend's legal issues and insulting people who don't share your precise opinion on a topic you actually know a lot less about than you seem to think, I'm sure that will help.

LOL ok. The public definitely cares, and you are free to go to the politics section if you’d like. Bye!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The audacity of calling Justin Baldoni’s lawsuit frivolous, while not acknowledging that Blake is falsely accusing a man of sexual harassment and laughably blaming him on the failure of another one of her many business ventures, when she has a trail of failed business ventures in her wake. The humiliating fall of her racist lifestyle brand, a production company that she was never able to get off the ground, the biggest box office bomb in history with the rhythm section, and her hairstyle line which was failing from the start with people complaining about the tone deaf packaging that doesn’t make sense and can’t fit in normal people’s showers, as well as the fact that nobody really likes Blake’s hair, and most people think she should just buy a hairbrush.

I think the SH allegations in Lively's lawsuit are real and actionable. I don't have an opinion on her hair or box office track record.

And I along with most of the public, and Taylor Swift apparently, think the allegations are total BS.

Your opinion, or lack of one, on her box office failures or hair care products have no relevance to the case, but thanks for weighing in.

Most of the public doesn't care about this at all. Have you noticed that our democracy is being dismantled? But do go on speculating about what Taylor Swift thinks about her friend's legal issues and insulting people who don't share your precise opinion on a topic you actually know a lot less about than you seem to think, I'm sure that will help.

LOL ok. The public definitely cares, and you are free to go to the politics section if you’d like. Bye!

Nope, still here. Sorry you can't just yell at and ridicule people in order to make this thread your personal echo chamber.

I think Baldoni is a harasser who used "male feminism" as a brand and then, when he got found out, showed his true colors by participating in and encouraging an internet pile on of a woman because he was afraid she'd tell others who he really is. I'm personally glad he'll never be able to sell another book/podcast/TED talk about how he really wants to listen to women and support them, since it was quite obviously all BS from the start.

[Anonymous]

Interesting that no intimacy coordinator was used for Anora. I would think most studios would just require from a risk management perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that no intimacy coordinator was used for Anora. I would think most studios would just require from a risk management perspective.

It is up to the actors. A lot don’t like them and feel they interfere with the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The audacity of calling Justin Baldoni’s lawsuit frivolous, while not acknowledging that Blake is falsely accusing a man of sexual harassment and laughably blaming him on the failure of another one of her many business ventures, when she has a trail of failed business ventures in her wake. The humiliating fall of her racist lifestyle brand, a production company that she was never able to get off the ground, the biggest box office bomb in history with the rhythm section, and her hairstyle line which was failing from the start with people complaining about the tone deaf packaging that doesn’t make sense and can’t fit in normal people’s showers, as well as the fact that nobody really likes Blake’s hair, and most people think she should just buy a hairbrush.

I think the SH allegations in Lively's lawsuit are real and actionable. I don't have an opinion on her hair or box office track record.

And I along with most of the public, and Taylor Swift apparently, think the allegations are total BS.

Your opinion, or lack of one, on her box office failures or hair care products have no relevance to the case, but thanks for weighing in.

Most of the public doesn't care about this at all. Have you noticed that our democracy is being dismantled? But do go on speculating about what Taylor Swift thinks about her friend's legal issues and insulting people who don't share your precise opinion on a topic you actually know a lot less about than you seem to think, I'm sure that will help.

LOL ok. The public definitely cares, and you are free to go to the politics section if you’d like. Bye!

Nope, still here. Sorry you can't just yell at and ridicule people in order to make this thread your personal echo chamber.

I think Baldoni is a harasser who used "male feminism" as a brand and then, when he got found out, showed his true colors by participating in and encouraging an internet pile on of a woman because he was afraid she'd tell others who he really is. I'm personally glad he'll never be able to sell another book/podcast/TED talk about how he really wants to listen to women and support them, since it was quite obviously all BS from the start.

Way to ignore all of the receipts that prove you are wrong. But nice job proving damages for JB!

[Anonymous]

I’m happy the Times has been exposed as corrupt. Media can be and is bought off to spread lies. We all know it, why pretend otherwise. They ain’t above reproach, reporters, editors and publishers can be evil, unethical, money and fame hungry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m happy the Times has been exposed as corrupt. Media can be and is bought off to spread lies. We all know it, why pretend otherwise. They ain’t above reproach, reporters, editors and publishers can be evil, unethical, money and fame hungry.

I don't understand what financial or other personal benefit you think the Times or Twohey received for this article.

I tend to think Twohey simply believed Lively and thought the article was correct.

[Anonymous]

There is no chance the NYT loses this case. What they reported isn’t false and there isn’t any evidence of malice at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that no intimacy coordinator was used for Anora. I would think most studios would just require from a risk management perspective.

From wikipedia. This creeped me out. Guess it's going to be the new cool girl thing to do in Hollywood:
At a press conference at the Cannes Film Festival, Madison said that Baker and the producer Samantha Quan, Baker's wife, would act out different sex positions to demonstrate what they wanted the actors to do. Madison was offered an intimacy coordinator, but said: "As I'd already created a really comfortable relationship with both of them for about a year, I felt that that would be where I was most comfortable with and it ended up working so perfectly."