Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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.

Megan wasn’t careful in her video though. Go back and watch it. She says as fact something like “hundreds of text messages reveal what really happened, a calculated smear campaign”. She didn’t use caveats at all.

[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.

Megan wasn’t careful in her video though. Go back and watch it. She says as fact something like “hundreds of text messages reveal what really happened, a calculated smear campaign”. She didn’t use caveats at all.

The article makes a similar reference. Which is why some of us think the MTD may not be entirely successful.

[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.

Megan wasn’t careful in her video though. Go back and watch it. She says as fact something like “hundreds of text messages reveal what really happened, a calculated smear campaign”. She didn’t use caveats at all.

I think if she said that about the SH, they might be in trouble. Regarding the PR campaign, it's just factual that Wayfarer/Abel/Nathan pursued that campaign. Her language is biased, but I agree that it's opinion based on strong sourcing -- they had the text messages.

It's not defamatory. What she says is not false.

[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.

They are so corrupt. They’ve had several scandals recently and have never retracted some of their stories with false reporting. Many people in their newsrooms have quit for this reason.

[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.

Megan wasn’t careful in her video though. Go back and watch it. She says as fact something like “hundreds of text messages reveal what really happened, a calculated smear campaign”. She didn’t use caveats at all.

I think if she said that about the SH, they might be in trouble. Regarding the PR campaign, it's just factual that Wayfarer/Abel/Nathan pursued that campaign. Her language is biased, but I agree that it's opinion based on strong sourcing -- they had the text messages.

It's not defamatory. What she says is not false.

I dunno. If she had said text messages “suggest” then maybe. But she was very firm, “text messages reveal what really happened, a campaign to tarnish Lively after she alleged SH.” Twohey basically made herself the judge and jury and proclaimed Justin was guilty of retaliation.

[Anonymous]

Is Candace Owens going to be brought into the lawsuit? I’ve followed her take on this case and she is very anti Blake and Ryan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Really? I tend to think she wanted another me too Pulitzer, and jumped the gun.

[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.

Megan wasn’t careful in her video though. Go back and watch it. She says as fact something like “hundreds of text messages reveal what really happened, a calculated smear campaign”. She didn’t use caveats at all.

I think if she said that about the SH, they might be in trouble. Regarding the PR campaign, it's just factual that Wayfarer/Abel/Nathan pursued that campaign. Her language is biased, but I agree that it's opinion based on strong sourcing -- they had the text messages.

It's not defamatory. What she says is not false.

I dunno. If she had said text messages “suggest” then maybe. But she was very firm, “text messages reveal what really happened, a campaign to tarnish Lively after she alleged SH.” Twohey basically made herself the judge and jury and proclaimed Justin was guilty of retaliation.

Interesting, I never did watch the video and have been posting about the article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Really? I tend to think she wanted another me too Pulitzer, and jumped the gun.

I think both. She wanted another big me too story but she must have believed Lively generally to risk her credibility on it. She focuses more on retaliation but must have believed that the sexual harassment complaints were reasonably plausible. I doubt Lively provided much proof, since I don't think she has much on SH, and because the article would have cited it, especially if there were written complaints from other actresses in hand. I guess Lively spun a good story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is Candace Owens going to be brought into the lawsuit? I’ve followed her take on this case and she is very anti Blake and Ryan

Why? Her reporting started after the lawsuit, not during August when the supposed smear campaign was happening.

Hate to break it to Blake and Ryan, but there are tons of influencers out there who don’t believe them and think they are a narcissists and are putting out a ton of content.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The article provided a free clickable PDF to the complaint. They did not have a paywall for the article or PDF. They knew it was going to get a ton, and I mean a ton of clicks. To say that they didn’t benefit financially from this is insane.

[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.

Megan wasn’t careful in her video though. Go back and watch it. She says as fact something like “hundreds of text messages reveal what really happened, a calculated smear campaign”. She didn’t use caveats at all.

The problem is, the smear campaign rests on the fact that there was sexual harassment. When he came out with his side of the story, we see that the sexual harassment is a very gray area and going to be hard to prove. It seems like it was just inappropriate and uncomfortable behavior and then you start seeing her take over of the movie and how uncomfortable and stressed out he was the entire time and you see why he has hired a PR crisis campaign.

The man was not allowed in his own premiere, and his director a film by credit was stripped. His version of the film did not go out into the world. She completely took over the movie, of course he was going to hire help. He was afraid of what she would continue to do and rightly so.

That is the context the times left out that we are all getting now.

And this is what should’ve given the times pause. Sexual harassment is about power and Blake lively pretty much complete power on that film. Her version of things simply does not add up.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if the”all hands” meeting sort of shifted everyone’s views about balding and/or Heath. Before then some members of the cast did not know these events had happened (or Blake’s view that they had happened). But they had an all hands meeting to say that unwanted kissing would not continue to happen, and talking about porn would not continue to happen, and surprise naked/kissing scenes would not continue to happen. I would think that would turn the cast off Baldoni somewhat, but I don’t know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the”all hands” meeting sort of shifted everyone’s views about balding and/or Heath. Before then some members of the cast did not know these events had happened (or Blake’s view that they had happened). But they had an all hands meeting to say that unwanted kissing would not continue to happen, and talking about porn would not continue to happen, and surprise naked/kissing scenes would not continue to happen. I would think that would turn the cast off Baldoni somewhat, but I don’t know.

I thought they all hands meeting had happened at Blake‘s apartment and it was just a small group of people - mainly wayfarer leadership, Blake and Ryan, and a few Sony executives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the”all hands” meeting sort of shifted everyone’s views about balding and/or Heath. Before then some members of the cast did not know these events had happened (or Blake’s view that they had happened). But they had an all hands meeting to say that unwanted kissing would not continue to happen, and talking about porn would not continue to happen, and surprise naked/kissing scenes would not continue to happen. I would think that would turn the cast off Baldoni somewhat, but I don’t know.

I thought they all hands meeting had happened at Blake‘s apartment and it was just a small group of people - mainly wayfarer leadership, Blake and Ryan, and a few Sony executives.

Just to add, I’m almost certain young lily’s scenes had been shot by that point and she was not needed after the strike. I recall she texted Justin that really sweet note in July 2023, during the strike, to talk about what a wonderful experience she had had. I’ll check the timeline though.