Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor Lorenz is weird and problematic in a few respects but I wholeheartedly agree with her on this front -- the right wing obsession with this case is clearly self-serving and watching liberals who would never vote for Trump suddenly claiming Candace Owens is a voice of reason her has been deeply disturbing.

It is really not dissimilar from young men who hold a lot of progressive values (pro choice, pro gay marriage, in favor of social programs and spending tax money on infrastructure and education) getting hooked on Joe Rogan and then voting for Trump, claiming he's "the only one" who can fix what's broken, and then staying silent as he sidles up to Putin and gives Elon access to our tax and social security data.

They are trying to red pill women via celeb gossip, using a sexual harassment case. And first step is to blow up Me Too support among women -- Candace Owens is a Harvey Weinstein defender, FYI.

This is so batshit and hilarious. Blake and Ryan's team have been trying to astroturf this MAGA hoax for months. There's no there there, you're just making Blake and Ryan appear more and more desperate.

PP here and what I wrote is true regardless of how you feel about Lively or Baldoni. You can support Baldoni without thinking Candace Owens is a reliable source for literally anything. You can think Lively is in the wrong but be savvy enough as a consumer of information to understand that Candace Owens TikTok account (the same place she engages in Holocaust denialism, claiming survivors of high school shootings are crisis actors, and other right wing hoaxes) is not a reliable source.

Owens and other right wingers have latched onto this conflict because they see opportunity. Here's a prominent, liberal actress who a lot of people are eager to dislike anyone, making a me too accusation. The main audience for discussion about it is women, because women follow celebrity news and gossip at much higher rates than men, plus Lively's core audience is women and the audience for the movie in question is women. So it's a perfect opportunity for these right wing grifters to give these women what they want (lots of news about celebrity legal conflict) and get them hooked on the idea that these are perfectly acceptable sources for news and info.

I swear, if a year from now I see people claiming that Candace Owens is a good source for info on the American relationship with Putin, or vaccine safety, we'll be able to trace that gullibility back to this incident.

Think whatever you want about Lively/Baldoni, but stop giving these right wing grifters your clicks!

There’s probably some truth to this, but just like in the election, liberals are leaving themselves vulnerable here by being too extreme. “Believe women” is an extreme position. The default should be to look at the evidence and then make a judgment. Liberals are losing their own audience by going off the deep end. If mainstream media covered this case more fairly, people wouldn’t be watching Candace Owen’s. None of the major papers will cross Blake. So far we have two hit pieces on Justin in major papers and none on Blake. The Hulu special skewed Blake (Hulu is owned by Disney). The list goes on. I’m a liberal and it’s making liberal media look corrupt. It’s a bad look.

See, you are already buying into it. You are already buying into the lies that (1) the mainstream media is the "liberal" media, and (2) that it's inherently biased in ways conservative media is not. When it's the reverse that is true. The mainstream media *is* biased, but not against Justin Baldoni, an entity they don't care about one way or another. Nor are they biased in favor of Blake Lively -- if it turns out Lively made up all her allegations, they will 100% report on that. Meanwhile, entities like Candace Owens are aggressively biased and manipulative and have no intention on reporting on the truth even if it doesn't serve their purposes. What if it turns out that some of Lively's allegations are true and cast Baldoni in a bad light? Do you think Candace Owens will report accurately on that? I don't.

There have not been two "hit pieces" on Baldoni, by the way. The NYT article was slanted towards Lively, yes, because it was focused on the retaliation claim and the text messages were pretty damning. But the LA Times article is not. It's actually very balanced and well reported, and they talk to people who frame Baldoni's behavior and personality in a positive light as well as sources who have had issues with him. And the point of that article was that of the two main people involved in this, Baldoni is the one people know very little about. People already know about Lively's positives and negatives -- the stuff about her failed lifestyle brand and her and Reynold's getting married on a plantation and the rumors about her issues with castmates and her relationships with costars. Lively is a known quantity. Baldoni is not, and the LA Times was seeking to fill in that gap, not with a hit piece but with a well reported and nuanced article. It wasn't a puff piece either and I'm glad for that.

The LAT was a hit piece. That’s why people are watching Candace Owen’s. If it weren’t for social media, no one would know about the dead stunt person on Deadpool, the little bump video etc. Not one major paper has bothered to tell any of those stories but the LAT opened a piece on Baldoni by talking about someone who died of CF and previously sued but ultimately dismissed their lawsuit against wayfarer. That’s not balanced.

Gah, the idea that the LAT & Candace Owen are in any way equivalent or that, of the pair, CO would be the unbiased source. My head is exploding. CO literally denies the Holocaust. I really really hope this thread is astroturfed and not that normal DCUMers have suddenly decided that Candace Owens is any kind of news source!!

The LAT shouldn’t be losing readers to CO but here we are. That should tell you something about how people are losing trust in mainstream media. The rational approach would be to course correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor Lorenz is weird and problematic in a few respects but I wholeheartedly agree with her on this front -- the right wing obsession with this case is clearly self-serving and watching liberals who would never vote for Trump suddenly claiming Candace Owens is a voice of reason her has been deeply disturbing.

It is really not dissimilar from young men who hold a lot of progressive values (pro choice, pro gay marriage, in favor of social programs and spending tax money on infrastructure and education) getting hooked on Joe Rogan and then voting for Trump, claiming he's "the only one" who can fix what's broken, and then staying silent as he sidles up to Putin and gives Elon access to our tax and social security data.

They are trying to red pill women via celeb gossip, using a sexual harassment case. And first step is to blow up Me Too support among women -- Candace Owens is a Harvey Weinstein defender, FYI.

This is so batshit and hilarious. Blake and Ryan's team have been trying to astroturf this MAGA hoax for months. There's no there there, you're just making Blake and Ryan appear more and more desperate.

PP here and what I wrote is true regardless of how you feel about Lively or Baldoni. You can support Baldoni without thinking Candace Owens is a reliable source for literally anything. You can think Lively is in the wrong but be savvy enough as a consumer of information to understand that Candace Owens TikTok account (the same place she engages in Holocaust denialism, claiming survivors of high school shootings are crisis actors, and other right wing hoaxes) is not a reliable source.

Owens and other right wingers have latched onto this conflict because they see opportunity. Here's a prominent, liberal actress who a lot of people are eager to dislike anyone, making a me too accusation. The main audience for discussion about it is women, because women follow celebrity news and gossip at much higher rates than men, plus Lively's core audience is women and the audience for the movie in question is women. So it's a perfect opportunity for these right wing grifters to give these women what they want (lots of news about celebrity legal conflict) and get them hooked on the idea that these are perfectly acceptable sources for news and info.

I swear, if a year from now I see people claiming that Candace Owens is a good source for info on the American relationship with Putin, or vaccine safety, we'll be able to trace that gullibility back to this incident.

Think whatever you want about Lively/Baldoni, but stop giving these right wing grifters your clicks!

There’s probably some truth to this, but just like in the election, liberals are leaving themselves vulnerable here by being too extreme. “Believe women” is an extreme position. The default should be to look at the evidence and then make a judgment. Liberals are losing their own audience by going off the deep end. If mainstream media covered this case more fairly, people wouldn’t be watching Candace Owen’s. None of the major papers will cross Blake. So far we have two hit pieces on Justin in major papers and none on Blake. The Hulu special skewed Blake (Hulu is owned by Disney). The list goes on. I’m a liberal and it’s making liberal media look corrupt. It’s a bad look.

See, you are already buying into it. You are already buying into the lies that (1) the mainstream media is the "liberal" media, and (2) that it's inherently biased in ways conservative media is not. When it's the reverse that is true. The mainstream media *is* biased, but not against Justin Baldoni, an entity they don't care about one way or another. Nor are they biased in favor of Blake Lively -- if it turns out Lively made up all her allegations, they will 100% report on that. Meanwhile, entities like Candace Owens are aggressively biased and manipulative and have no intention on reporting on the truth even if it doesn't serve their purposes. What if it turns out that some of Lively's allegations are true and cast Baldoni in a bad light? Do you think Candace Owens will report accurately on that? I don't.

There have not been two "hit pieces" on Baldoni, by the way. The NYT article was slanted towards Lively, yes, because it was focused on the retaliation claim and the text messages were pretty damning. But the LA Times article is not. It's actually very balanced and well reported, and they talk to people who frame Baldoni's behavior and personality in a positive light as well as sources who have had issues with him. And the point of that article was that of the two main people involved in this, Baldoni is the one people know very little about. People already know about Lively's positives and negatives -- the stuff about her failed lifestyle brand and her and Reynold's getting married on a plantation and the rumors about her issues with castmates and her relationships with costars. Lively is a known quantity. Baldoni is not, and the LA Times was seeking to fill in that gap, not with a hit piece but with a well reported and nuanced article. It wasn't a puff piece either and I'm glad for that.

The LAT was a hit piece. That’s why people are watching Candace Owen’s. If it weren’t for social media, no one would know about the dead stunt person on Deadpool, the little bump video etc. Not one major paper has bothered to tell any of those stories but the LAT opened a piece on Baldoni by talking about someone who died of CF and previously sued but ultimately dismissed their lawsuit against wayfarer. That’s not balanced.

Gah, the idea that the LAT & Candace Owen are in any way equivalent or that, of the pair, CO would be the unbiased source. My head is exploding. CO literally denies the Holocaust. I really really hope this thread is astroturfed and not that normal DCUMers have suddenly decided that Candace Owens is any kind of news source!!

The LAT shouldn’t be losing readers to CO but here we are. That should tell you something about how people are losing trust in mainstream media. The rational approach would be to course correct.

To be fair, the LA Times is owned by a billionaire Trumpster and is known to not be practicing journalism at the moment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor Lorenz is weird and problematic in a few respects but I wholeheartedly agree with her on this front -- the right wing obsession with this case is clearly self-serving and watching liberals who would never vote for Trump suddenly claiming Candace Owens is a voice of reason her has been deeply disturbing.

It is really not dissimilar from young men who hold a lot of progressive values (pro choice, pro gay marriage, in favor of social programs and spending tax money on infrastructure and education) getting hooked on Joe Rogan and then voting for Trump, claiming he's "the only one" who can fix what's broken, and then staying silent as he sidles up to Putin and gives Elon access to our tax and social security data.

They are trying to red pill women via celeb gossip, using a sexual harassment case. And first step is to blow up Me Too support among women -- Candace Owens is a Harvey Weinstein defender, FYI.

This is so batshit and hilarious. Blake and Ryan's team have been trying to astroturf this MAGA hoax for months. There's no there there, you're just making Blake and Ryan appear more and more desperate.

PP here and what I wrote is true regardless of how you feel about Lively or Baldoni. You can support Baldoni without thinking Candace Owens is a reliable source for literally anything. You can think Lively is in the wrong but be savvy enough as a consumer of information to understand that Candace Owens TikTok account (the same place she engages in Holocaust denialism, claiming survivors of high school shootings are crisis actors, and other right wing hoaxes) is not a reliable source.

Owens and other right wingers have latched onto this conflict because they see opportunity. Here's a prominent, liberal actress who a lot of people are eager to dislike anyone, making a me too accusation. The main audience for discussion about it is women, because women follow celebrity news and gossip at much higher rates than men, plus Lively's core audience is women and the audience for the movie in question is women. So it's a perfect opportunity for these right wing grifters to give these women what they want (lots of news about celebrity legal conflict) and get them hooked on the idea that these are perfectly acceptable sources for news and info.

I swear, if a year from now I see people claiming that Candace Owens is a good source for info on the American relationship with Putin, or vaccine safety, we'll be able to trace that gullibility back to this incident.

Think whatever you want about Lively/Baldoni, but stop giving these right wing grifters your clicks!

There’s probably some truth to this, but just like in the election, liberals are leaving themselves vulnerable here by being too extreme. “Believe women” is an extreme position. The default should be to look at the evidence and then make a judgment. Liberals are losing their own audience by going off the deep end. If mainstream media covered this case more fairly, people wouldn’t be watching Candace Owen’s. None of the major papers will cross Blake. So far we have two hit pieces on Justin in major papers and none on Blake. The Hulu special skewed Blake (Hulu is owned by Disney). The list goes on. I’m a liberal and it’s making liberal media look corrupt. It’s a bad look.

See, you are already buying into it. You are already buying into the lies that (1) the mainstream media is the "liberal" media, and (2) that it's inherently biased in ways conservative media is not. When it's the reverse that is true. The mainstream media *is* biased, but not against Justin Baldoni, an entity they don't care about one way or another. Nor are they biased in favor of Blake Lively -- if it turns out Lively made up all her allegations, they will 100% report on that. Meanwhile, entities like Candace Owens are aggressively biased and manipulative and have no intention on reporting on the truth even if it doesn't serve their purposes. What if it turns out that some of Lively's allegations are true and cast Baldoni in a bad light? Do you think Candace Owens will report accurately on that? I don't.

There have not been two "hit pieces" on Baldoni, by the way. The NYT article was slanted towards Lively, yes, because it was focused on the retaliation claim and the text messages were pretty damning. But the LA Times article is not. It's actually very balanced and well reported, and they talk to people who frame Baldoni's behavior and personality in a positive light as well as sources who have had issues with him. And the point of that article was that of the two main people involved in this, Baldoni is the one people know very little about. People already know about Lively's positives and negatives -- the stuff about her failed lifestyle brand and her and Reynold's getting married on a plantation and the rumors about her issues with castmates and her relationships with costars. Lively is a known quantity. Baldoni is not, and the LA Times was seeking to fill in that gap, not with a hit piece but with a well reported and nuanced article. It wasn't a puff piece either and I'm glad for that.

The LAT was a hit piece. That’s why people are watching Candace Owen’s. If it weren’t for social media, no one would know about the dead stunt person on Deadpool, the little bump video etc. Not one major paper has bothered to tell any of those stories but the LAT opened a piece on Baldoni by talking about someone who died of CF and previously sued but ultimately dismissed their lawsuit against wayfarer. That’s not balanced.

The "little bump" video was literally covered in the NYT article Baldoni alleges to be defamatory, and has been mentioned in other mainstream media coverage of the Lively/Baldoni conflict. The video is 10 years old and depicts an actress being rude. It is not a major news event.

The death on the set of Deadpool 2 was covered at the time, in 2019. The film's makers were fined 300k for the safety failures that led to the death, a fact reported on extensively in 2020, when it happened. None of this is news now, and has nothing to do with Baldoni or Lively and is only tangentially related to the matter via Reynold's involvement.

Meanwhile, Lively's lawsuit was filed three months ago and is ongoing. Baldoni is named in that lawsuit for potentially illegal behavior that has not previously been investigated or addressed. He also filed his own lawsuit against the NYT for defamation, and has threatened to take legal action against Marvel and Disney for the "Nicepool" character. The lawsuit against Baldoni over the movie Five Feet Apart was only dropped in May, 2024, less than a year ago, and had never been reported on in the mainstream press. It also has a surprising relationship to the current matter, as Baldoni's lawyer, Bryan Freedman, represented the plaintiff in that action against Baldoni and Wayfarer.

By the way, if you read to the end of that LA Times piece, you would have read about a female documentary director who has worked for Wayfarer and praises Baldoni and the company, and others who defend them by explaining how misinterpretations of their faith may lead to miscommunication, but contend Baldoni has never harassed anyone. It was a balanced article that provided a nuanced portrait of Baldoni, but you must get not know that if you read two paragraphs that reported verified facts that don't cast Baldoni has a downtrodden hero and then quit, since it wasn't reinforcing your own existing biases right away.

I know all this from reading reputable news sources from a variety of sources written by actual journalists, instead of getting my news from TikTok and grifters like Candace Owens.

[Anonymous]

I think it’s funny that people are holding up lively some liberal woman who the conservative right can’t wait to take down.

Blake and Ryan no doubt voted for Harris and are no doubt liberal, but Blake has a lot of traditional conservative values. She is not the Chelsea Handler, Sarah Silverman, Amy Schumer kind of liberal celeb who either don’t have kids or don’t have a lot of kids, and who are body open with their sexuality and Don’t mind being seen looking gross with no make up on that drives the right insane.

Blake is always very curated like a princess, got married young, she has four children, a traditional marriage that is flaunted, and she’s pretty prim and proper. She loves baking and entertaining and being a mom and it’s a big part of her brand. Her quotes from the lawsuit, say that, (at age 35 when she was filming) she’s “too old”to orgasm on screen, and she also was mortified at the thought of having an orgasm without her husband having one. Frankly, that sounds like something my boomer conservative mom would say and not a liberal actress that the conservative right is trying to take down.

Blake is never going to go on call your daddy and talk about her sex life. We are never going to see her messy kitchen or her looking unkempt.

It’s just kind of funny people are equating her to like the ultimate liberal woman take down.

I like this case because there is some nuance. There was likely inappropriate behavior on set but Blake seemed to leverage and add to it to get her way and she did it alongside and with help from her very powerful husband. It’s not simply someone lying and it’s not a typical power dynamic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s funny that people are holding up lively some liberal woman who the conservative right can’t wait to take down.

Blake and Ryan no doubt voted for Harris and are no doubt liberal, but Blake has a lot of traditional conservative values. She is not the Chelsea Handler, Sarah Silverman, Amy Schumer kind of liberal celeb who either don’t have kids or don’t have a lot of kids, and who are body open with their sexuality and Don’t mind being seen looking gross with no make up on that drives the right insane.

Blake is always very curated like a princess, got married young, she has four children, a traditional marriage that is flaunted, and she’s pretty prim and proper. She loves baking and entertaining and being a mom and it’s a big part of her brand. Her quotes from the lawsuit, say that, (at age 35 when she was filming) she’s “too old”to orgasm on screen, and she also was mortified at the thought of having an orgasm without her husband having one. Frankly, that sounds like something my boomer conservative mom would say and not a liberal actress that the conservative right is trying to take down.

Blake is never going to go on call your daddy and talk about her sex life. We are never going to see her messy kitchen or her looking unkempt.

It’s just kind of funny people are equating her to like the ultimate liberal woman take down.

I like this case because there is some nuance. There was likely inappropriate behavior on set but Blake seemed to leverage and add to it to get her way and she did it alongside and with help from her very powerful husband. It’s not simply someone lying and it’s not a typical power dynamic.

And she did it with the help of mainstream media, which to date has been pretty slanted in her favor. The fact that the public is largely on Baldonis side and that’s not reflected in major publications is pretty telling. Again, that’s why people are turning to these tabloids and CO types. Not gonna get the whole story from the nyt, lat etc and that’s pretty sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s funny that people are holding up lively some liberal woman who the conservative right can’t wait to take down.

Blake and Ryan no doubt voted for Harris and are no doubt liberal, but Blake has a lot of traditional conservative values. She is not the Chelsea Handler, Sarah Silverman, Amy Schumer kind of liberal celeb who either don’t have kids or don’t have a lot of kids, and who are body open with their sexuality and Don’t mind being seen looking gross with no make up on that drives the right insane.

Blake is always very curated like a princess, got married young, she has four children, a traditional marriage that is flaunted, and she’s pretty prim and proper. She loves baking and entertaining and being a mom and it’s a big part of her brand. Her quotes from the lawsuit, say that, (at age 35 when she was filming) she’s “too old”to orgasm on screen, and she also was mortified at the thought of having an orgasm without her husband having one. Frankly, that sounds like something my boomer conservative mom would say and not a liberal actress that the conservative right is trying to take down.

Blake is never going to go on call your daddy and talk about her sex life. We are never going to see her messy kitchen or her looking unkempt.

It’s just kind of funny people are equating her to like the ultimate liberal woman take down.

I like this case because there is some nuance. There was likely inappropriate behavior on set but Blake seemed to leverage and add to it to get her way and she did it alongside and with help from her very powerful husband. It’s not simply someone lying and it’s not a typical power dynamic.

I haven't seen anyone claim Lively is some paragon of liberal virtue? She doesn't strike me as particularly political except in a lazy Hollywood way.

But that doesn't mean that it makes sense to follow someone like Candace Owens on this story. I don't think CO is "covering" this because Lively is famously liberal and right wingers are trying to take her down. I think CO sees an opportunity to build her following and attract a lot of younger women to her channel by discussing a celebrity case and taking the viewpoint that Lively is the aggressor because that's a popular opinion online. And then she'll try to sell her newfound audience on other, much more concerning viewpoints, like her belief that Judaism is a "pedophile-centric" religion or her claim that Macron is married to a trans woman who abused him as a child.

Candace Owens is crazy and dangerous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s funny that people are holding up lively some liberal woman who the conservative right can’t wait to take down.

Blake and Ryan no doubt voted for Harris and are no doubt liberal, but Blake has a lot of traditional conservative values. She is not the Chelsea Handler, Sarah Silverman, Amy Schumer kind of liberal celeb who either don’t have kids or don’t have a lot of kids, and who are body open with their sexuality and Don’t mind being seen looking gross with no make up on that drives the right insane.

Blake is always very curated like a princess, got married young, she has four children, a traditional marriage that is flaunted, and she’s pretty prim and proper. She loves baking and entertaining and being a mom and it’s a big part of her brand. Her quotes from the lawsuit, say that, (at age 35 when she was filming) she’s “too old”to orgasm on screen, and she also was mortified at the thought of having an orgasm without her husband having one. Frankly, that sounds like something my boomer conservative mom would say and not a liberal actress that the conservative right is trying to take down.

Blake is never going to go on call your daddy and talk about her sex life. We are never going to see her messy kitchen or her looking unkempt.

It’s just kind of funny people are equating her to like the ultimate liberal woman take down.

I like this case because there is some nuance. There was likely inappropriate behavior on set but Blake seemed to leverage and add to it to get her way and she did it alongside and with help from her very powerful husband. It’s not simply someone lying and it’s not a typical power dynamic.

And she did it with the help of mainstream media, which to date has been pretty slanted in her favor. The fact that the public is largely on Baldonis side and that’s not reflected in major publications is pretty telling. Again, that’s why people are turning to these tabloids and CO types. Not gonna get the whole story from the nyt, lat etc and that’s pretty sad.

Listen to yourself. You absolutely can read mainstream news sources and still take Baldoni's side. It's easy -- rely on your own interpretation of the reporting.

What you actually want is someone who will tell you what to think and parrot your thoughts back to you. The mainstream media is not "pro-Lively" be sure they aren't reporting I'm conspiracy theories about how Lively and Reynolds plotted to steal IEWU from the start because there is zero evidence of that. You like tabloids and influencers who will be like "New Evidence it was a plot all along!" And then the evidence is a link to an old interview where Lively talks about how she likes to get very involved in all aspects of movies she works on, which isn't actually evidence of anything.

You are making the same mistake Trump voters make and thinking that if a news source doesn't confirm all your existing beliefs on a subject, they must be biased and lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s funny that people are holding up lively some liberal woman who the conservative right can’t wait to take down.

Blake and Ryan no doubt voted for Harris and are no doubt liberal, but Blake has a lot of traditional conservative values. She is not the Chelsea Handler, Sarah Silverman, Amy Schumer kind of liberal celeb who either don’t have kids or don’t have a lot of kids, and who are body open with their sexuality and Don’t mind being seen looking gross with no make up on that drives the right insane.

Blake is always very curated like a princess, got married young, she has four children, a traditional marriage that is flaunted, and she’s pretty prim and proper. She loves baking and entertaining and being a mom and it’s a big part of her brand. Her quotes from the lawsuit, say that, (at age 35 when she was filming) she’s “too old”to orgasm on screen, and she also was mortified at the thought of having an orgasm without her husband having one. Frankly, that sounds like something my boomer conservative mom would say and not a liberal actress that the conservative right is trying to take down.

Blake is never going to go on call your daddy and talk about her sex life. We are never going to see her messy kitchen or her looking unkempt.

It’s just kind of funny people are equating her to like the ultimate liberal woman take down.

I like this case because there is some nuance. There was likely inappropriate behavior on set but Blake seemed to leverage and add to it to get her way and she did it alongside and with help from her very powerful husband. It’s not simply someone lying and it’s not a typical power dynamic.

I haven't seen anyone claim Lively is some paragon of liberal virtue? She doesn't strike me as particularly political except in a lazy Hollywood way.

But that doesn't mean that it makes sense to follow someone like Candace Owens on this story. I don't think CO is "covering" this because Lively is famously liberal and right wingers are trying to take her down. I think CO sees an opportunity to build her following and attract a lot of younger women to her channel by discussing a celebrity case and taking the viewpoint that Lively is the aggressor because that's a popular opinion online. And then she'll try to sell her newfound audience on other, much more concerning viewpoints, like her belief that Judaism is a "pedophile-centric" religion or her claim that Macron is married to a trans woman who abused him as a child.

Candace Owens is crazy and dangerous.

I agree with you about Candace, and I have not watched one second of any of her videos or news on this case.

There are plenty of other podcasts and influencers doing very good deep dives on this if you want to avoid Candace. She’s not the only game in town.

[Anonymous]

The latest Internet sleuths have found that Justin and his wife like to twin sometimes some reason like defying gender norms or this is the warmest day or some nonsense.

But, now there are all these images showing up of Blake, Ryan, Brandon, and Ryan’s mother dressed in the same sweater in the behind the scenes that Ryan’s maximum effort company did for the it ends with us promo where Ryan pretends to be jealous of Brandon

Later Blake and her sister Robin are wearing the same sweaters.

So basically, they’re just trolling and mean girling Justin to death. I cannot imagine grown adults acting like this. I think Ryan has a real unhealthy obsession with this guy. This is not normal behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The latest Internet sleuths have found that Justin and his wife like to twin sometimes some reason like defying gender norms or some nonsense.

But, now there are all these images showing up of Blake, Ryan, Brandon, and Ryan’s mother dressed in the same sweater in the behind the scenes that Ryan’s maximum effort company did for the it ends with us promo where Ryan pretends to be jealous of Brandon

Later Blake and her sister Robin are wearing the same sweaters.

So basically, they’re just trolling and mean girling Justin to death. I cannot imagine grown adults acting like this. I think Ryan has a real unhealthy obsession with this guy. This is not normal behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The latest Internet sleuths have found that Justin and his wife like to twin sometimes some reason like defying gender norms or some nonsense.

But, now there are all these images showing up of Blake, Ryan, Brandon, and Ryan’s mother dressed in the same sweater in the behind the scenes that Ryan’s maximum effort company did for the it ends with us promo where Ryan pretends to be jealous of Brandon

Later Blake and her sister Robin are wearing the same sweaters.

So basically, they’re just trolling and mean girling Justin to death. I cannot imagine grown adults acting like this. I think Ryan has a real unhealthy obsession with this guy. This is not normal behavior.

Sorry, I had to repost cause the first one got garbled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor Lorenz is weird and problematic in a few respects but I wholeheartedly agree with her on this front -- the right wing obsession with this case is clearly self-serving and watching liberals who would never vote for Trump suddenly claiming Candace Owens is a voice of reason her has been deeply disturbing.

It is really not dissimilar from young men who hold a lot of progressive values (pro choice, pro gay marriage, in favor of social programs and spending tax money on infrastructure and education) getting hooked on Joe Rogan and then voting for Trump, claiming he's "the only one" who can fix what's broken, and then staying silent as he sidles up to Putin and gives Elon access to our tax and social security data.

They are trying to red pill women via celeb gossip, using a sexual harassment case. And first step is to blow up Me Too support among women -- Candace Owens is a Harvey Weinstein defender, FYI.

This is so batshit and hilarious. Blake and Ryan's team have been trying to astroturf this MAGA hoax for months. There's no there there, you're just making Blake and Ryan appear more and more desperate.

PP here and what I wrote is true regardless of how you feel about Lively or Baldoni. You can support Baldoni without thinking Candace Owens is a reliable source for literally anything. You can think Lively is in the wrong but be savvy enough as a consumer of information to understand that Candace Owens TikTok account (the same place she engages in Holocaust denialism, claiming survivors of high school shootings are crisis actors, and other right wing hoaxes) is not a reliable source.

Owens and other right wingers have latched onto this conflict because they see opportunity. Here's a prominent, liberal actress who a lot of people are eager to dislike anyone, making a me too accusation. The main audience for discussion about it is women, because women follow celebrity news and gossip at much higher rates than men, plus Lively's core audience is women and the audience for the movie in question is women. So it's a perfect opportunity for these right wing grifters to give these women what they want (lots of news about celebrity legal conflict) and get them hooked on the idea that these are perfectly acceptable sources for news and info.

I swear, if a year from now I see people claiming that Candace Owens is a good source for info on the American relationship with Putin, or vaccine safety, we'll be able to trace that gullibility back to this incident.

Think whatever you want about Lively/Baldoni, but stop giving these right wing grifters your clicks!

There’s probably some truth to this, but just like in the election, liberals are leaving themselves vulnerable here by being too extreme. “Believe women” is an extreme position. The default should be to look at the evidence and then make a judgment. Liberals are losing their own audience by going off the deep end. If mainstream media covered this case more fairly, people wouldn’t be watching Candace Owen’s. None of the major papers will cross Blake. So far we have two hit pieces on Justin in major papers and none on Blake. The Hulu special skewed Blake (Hulu is owned by Disney). The list goes on. I’m a liberal and it’s making liberal media look corrupt. It’s a bad look.

See, you are already buying into it. You are already buying into the lies that (1) the mainstream media is the "liberal" media, and (2) that it's inherently biased in ways conservative media is not. When it's the reverse that is true. The mainstream media *is* biased, but not against Justin Baldoni, an entity they don't care about one way or another. Nor are they biased in favor of Blake Lively -- if it turns out Lively made up all her allegations, they will 100% report on that. Meanwhile, entities like Candace Owens are aggressively biased and manipulative and have no intention on reporting on the truth even if it doesn't serve their purposes. What if it turns out that some of Lively's allegations are true and cast Baldoni in a bad light? Do you think Candace Owens will report accurately on that? I don't.

There have not been two "hit pieces" on Baldoni, by the way. The NYT article was slanted towards Lively, yes, because it was focused on the retaliation claim and the text messages were pretty damning. But the LA Times article is not. It's actually very balanced and well reported, and they talk to people who frame Baldoni's behavior and personality in a positive light as well as sources who have had issues with him. And the point of that article was that of the two main people involved in this, Baldoni is the one people know very little about. People already know about Lively's positives and negatives -- the stuff about her failed lifestyle brand and her and Reynold's getting married on a plantation and the rumors about her issues with castmates and her relationships with costars. Lively is a known quantity. Baldoni is not, and the LA Times was seeking to fill in that gap, not with a hit piece but with a well reported and nuanced article. It wasn't a puff piece either and I'm glad for that.

The LAT was a hit piece. That’s why people are watching Candace Owen’s. If it weren’t for social media, no one would know about the dead stunt person on Deadpool, the little bump video etc. Not one major paper has bothered to tell any of those stories but the LAT opened a piece on Baldoni by talking about someone who died of CF and previously sued but ultimately dismissed their lawsuit against wayfarer. That’s not balanced.

The "little bump" video was literally covered in the NYT article Baldoni alleges to be defamatory, and has been mentioned in other mainstream media coverage of the Lively/Baldoni conflict. The video is 10 years old and depicts an actress being rude. It is not a major news event.

The death on the set of Deadpool 2 was covered at the time, in 2019. The film's makers were fined 300k for the safety failures that led to the death, a fact reported on extensively in 2020, when it happened. None of this is news now, and has nothing to do with Baldoni or Lively and is only tangentially related to the matter via Reynold's involvement.

Meanwhile, Lively's lawsuit was filed three months ago and is ongoing. Baldoni is named in that lawsuit for potentially illegal behavior that has not previously been investigated or addressed. He also filed his own lawsuit against the NYT for defamation, and has threatened to take legal action against Marvel and Disney for the "Nicepool" character. The lawsuit against Baldoni over the movie Five Feet Apart was only dropped in May, 2024, less than a year ago, and had never been reported on in the mainstream press. It also has a surprising relationship to the current matter, as Baldoni's lawyer, Bryan Freedman, represented the plaintiff in that action against Baldoni and Wayfarer.

By the way, if you read to the end of that LA Times piece, you would have read about a female documentary director who has worked for Wayfarer and praises Baldoni and the company, and others who defend them by explaining how misinterpretations of their faith may lead to miscommunication, but contend Baldoni has never harassed anyone. It was a balanced article that provided a nuanced portrait of Baldoni, but you must get not know that if you read two paragraphs that reported verified facts that don't cast Baldoni has a downtrodden hero and then quit, since it wasn't reinforcing your own existing biases right away.

I know all this from reading reputable news sources from a variety of sources written by actual journalists, instead of getting my news from TikTok and grifters like Candace Owens.

Funny you think the LA Times is “reputable” when the journalists that work there are resigning in protest to current leadership. Whatever suits your narrative.

[Anonymous]

This whole newspapers are a better source argument is silly. Most of us are going off the actual court documents and one video released from the film.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor Lorenz is weird and problematic in a few respects but I wholeheartedly agree with her on this front -- the right wing obsession with this case is clearly self-serving and watching liberals who would never vote for Trump suddenly claiming Candace Owens is a voice of reason her has been deeply disturbing.

It is really not dissimilar from young men who hold a lot of progressive values (pro choice, pro gay marriage, in favor of social programs and spending tax money on infrastructure and education) getting hooked on Joe Rogan and then voting for Trump, claiming he's "the only one" who can fix what's broken, and then staying silent as he sidles up to Putin and gives Elon access to our tax and social security data.

They are trying to red pill women via celeb gossip, using a sexual harassment case. And first step is to blow up Me Too support among women -- Candace Owens is a Harvey Weinstein defender, FYI.

This is so batshit and hilarious. Blake and Ryan's team have been trying to astroturf this MAGA hoax for months. There's no there there, you're just making Blake and Ryan appear more and more desperate.

PP here and what I wrote is true regardless of how you feel about Lively or Baldoni. You can support Baldoni without thinking Candace Owens is a reliable source for literally anything. You can think Lively is in the wrong but be savvy enough as a consumer of information to understand that Candace Owens TikTok account (the same place she engages in Holocaust denialism, claiming survivors of high school shootings are crisis actors, and other right wing hoaxes) is not a reliable source.

Owens and other right wingers have latched onto this conflict because they see opportunity. Here's a prominent, liberal actress who a lot of people are eager to dislike anyone, making a me too accusation. The main audience for discussion about it is women, because women follow celebrity news and gossip at much higher rates than men, plus Lively's core audience is women and the audience for the movie in question is women. So it's a perfect opportunity for these right wing grifters to give these women what they want (lots of news about celebrity legal conflict) and get them hooked on the idea that these are perfectly acceptable sources for news and info.

I swear, if a year from now I see people claiming that Candace Owens is a good source for info on the American relationship with Putin, or vaccine safety, we'll be able to trace that gullibility back to this incident.

Think whatever you want about Lively/Baldoni, but stop giving these right wing grifters your clicks!

There’s probably some truth to this, but just like in the election, liberals are leaving themselves vulnerable here by being too extreme. “Believe women” is an extreme position. The default should be to look at the evidence and then make a judgment. Liberals are losing their own audience by going off the deep end. If mainstream media covered this case more fairly, people wouldn’t be watching Candace Owen’s. None of the major papers will cross Blake. So far we have two hit pieces on Justin in major papers and none on Blake. The Hulu special skewed Blake (Hulu is owned by Disney). The list goes on. I’m a liberal and it’s making liberal media look corrupt. It’s a bad look.

See, you are already buying into it. You are already buying into the lies that (1) the mainstream media is the "liberal" media, and (2) that it's inherently biased in ways conservative media is not. When it's the reverse that is true. The mainstream media *is* biased, but not against Justin Baldoni, an entity they don't care about one way or another. Nor are they biased in favor of Blake Lively -- if it turns out Lively made up all her allegations, they will 100% report on that. Meanwhile, entities like Candace Owens are aggressively biased and manipulative and have no intention on reporting on the truth even if it doesn't serve their purposes. What if it turns out that some of Lively's allegations are true and cast Baldoni in a bad light? Do you think Candace Owens will report accurately on that? I don't.

There have not been two "hit pieces" on Baldoni, by the way. The NYT article was slanted towards Lively, yes, because it was focused on the retaliation claim and the text messages were pretty damning. But the LA Times article is not. It's actually very balanced and well reported, and they talk to people who frame Baldoni's behavior and personality in a positive light as well as sources who have had issues with him. And the point of that article was that of the two main people involved in this, Baldoni is the one people know very little about. People already know about Lively's positives and negatives -- the stuff about her failed lifestyle brand and her and Reynold's getting married on a plantation and the rumors about her issues with castmates and her relationships with costars. Lively is a known quantity. Baldoni is not, and the LA Times was seeking to fill in that gap, not with a hit piece but with a well reported and nuanced article. It wasn't a puff piece either and I'm glad for that.

The LAT was a hit piece. That’s why people are watching Candace Owen’s. If it weren’t for social media, no one would know about the dead stunt person on Deadpool, the little bump video etc. Not one major paper has bothered to tell any of those stories but the LAT opened a piece on Baldoni by talking about someone who died of CF and previously sued but ultimately dismissed their lawsuit against wayfarer. That’s not balanced.

The "little bump" video was literally covered in the NYT article Baldoni alleges to be defamatory, and has been mentioned in other mainstream media coverage of the Lively/Baldoni conflict. The video is 10 years old and depicts an actress being rude. It is not a major news event.

The death on the set of Deadpool 2 was covered at the time, in 2019. The film's makers were fined 300k for the safety failures that led to the death, a fact reported on extensively in 2020, when it happened. None of this is news now, and has nothing to do with Baldoni or Lively and is only tangentially related to the matter via Reynold's involvement.

Meanwhile, Lively's lawsuit was filed three months ago and is ongoing. Baldoni is named in that lawsuit for potentially illegal behavior that has not previously been investigated or addressed. He also filed his own lawsuit against the NYT for defamation, and has threatened to take legal action against Marvel and Disney for the "Nicepool" character. The lawsuit against Baldoni over the movie Five Feet Apart was only dropped in May, 2024, less than a year ago, and had never been reported on in the mainstream press. It also has a surprising relationship to the current matter, as Baldoni's lawyer, Bryan Freedman, represented the plaintiff in that action against Baldoni and Wayfarer.

By the way, if you read to the end of that LA Times piece, you would have read about a female documentary director who has worked for Wayfarer and praises Baldoni and the company, and others who defend them by explaining how misinterpretations of their faith may lead to miscommunication, but contend Baldoni has never harassed anyone. It was a balanced article that provided a nuanced portrait of Baldoni, but you must get not know that if you read two paragraphs that reported verified facts that don't cast Baldoni has a downtrodden hero and then quit, since it wasn't reinforcing your own existing biases right away.

I know all this from reading reputable news sources from a variety of sources written by actual journalists, instead of getting my news from TikTok and grifters like Candace Owens.

The way the information is framed matters. The nyt article referenced the little bump video as part of the retaliation claims, framing BL as a victim instead of a mean girl. No major publication has done an in depth profile on BL the way the LAT did on Baldoni digging up every little thing in his pass, including people who thought he was “too positive”. Where’s the in depth profile on Blake about the production people she made cry, her plantation wedding she never apologized for, her issues with GG castmates. No one has done that profile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor Lorenz is weird and problematic in a few respects but I wholeheartedly agree with her on this front -- the right wing obsession with this case is clearly self-serving and watching liberals who would never vote for Trump suddenly claiming Candace Owens is a voice of reason her has been deeply disturbing.

It is really not dissimilar from young men who hold a lot of progressive values (pro choice, pro gay marriage, in favor of social programs and spending tax money on infrastructure and education) getting hooked on Joe Rogan and then voting for Trump, claiming he's "the only one" who can fix what's broken, and then staying silent as he sidles up to Putin and gives Elon access to our tax and social security data.

They are trying to red pill women via celeb gossip, using a sexual harassment case. And first step is to blow up Me Too support among women -- Candace Owens is a Harvey Weinstein defender, FYI.

This is so batshit and hilarious. Blake and Ryan's team have been trying to astroturf this MAGA hoax for months. There's no there there, you're just making Blake and Ryan appear more and more desperate.

PP here and what I wrote is true regardless of how you feel about Lively or Baldoni. You can support Baldoni without thinking Candace Owens is a reliable source for literally anything. You can think Lively is in the wrong but be savvy enough as a consumer of information to understand that Candace Owens TikTok account (the same place she engages in Holocaust denialism, claiming survivors of high school shootings are crisis actors, and other right wing hoaxes) is not a reliable source.

Owens and other right wingers have latched onto this conflict because they see opportunity. Here's a prominent, liberal actress who a lot of people are eager to dislike anyone, making a me too accusation. The main audience for discussion about it is women, because women follow celebrity news and gossip at much higher rates than men, plus Lively's core audience is women and the audience for the movie in question is women. So it's a perfect opportunity for these right wing grifters to give these women what they want (lots of news about celebrity legal conflict) and get them hooked on the idea that these are perfectly acceptable sources for news and info.

I swear, if a year from now I see people claiming that Candace Owens is a good source for info on the American relationship with Putin, or vaccine safety, we'll be able to trace that gullibility back to this incident.

Think whatever you want about Lively/Baldoni, but stop giving these right wing grifters your clicks!

There’s probably some truth to this, but just like in the election, liberals are leaving themselves vulnerable here by being too extreme. “Believe women” is an extreme position. The default should be to look at the evidence and then make a judgment. Liberals are losing their own audience by going off the deep end. If mainstream media covered this case more fairly, people wouldn’t be watching Candace Owen’s. None of the major papers will cross Blake. So far we have two hit pieces on Justin in major papers and none on Blake. The Hulu special skewed Blake (Hulu is owned by Disney). The list goes on. I’m a liberal and it’s making liberal media look corrupt. It’s a bad look.

See, you are already buying into it. You are already buying into the lies that (1) the mainstream media is the "liberal" media, and (2) that it's inherently biased in ways conservative media is not. When it's the reverse that is true. The mainstream media *is* biased, but not against Justin Baldoni, an entity they don't care about one way or another. Nor are they biased in favor of Blake Lively -- if it turns out Lively made up all her allegations, they will 100% report on that. Meanwhile, entities like Candace Owens are aggressively biased and manipulative and have no intention on reporting on the truth even if it doesn't serve their purposes. What if it turns out that some of Lively's allegations are true and cast Baldoni in a bad light? Do you think Candace Owens will report accurately on that? I don't.

There have not been two "hit pieces" on Baldoni, by the way. The NYT article was slanted towards Lively, yes, because it was focused on the retaliation claim and the text messages were pretty damning. But the LA Times article is not. It's actually very balanced and well reported, and they talk to people who frame Baldoni's behavior and personality in a positive light as well as sources who have had issues with him. And the point of that article was that of the two main people involved in this, Baldoni is the one people know very little about. People already know about Lively's positives and negatives -- the stuff about her failed lifestyle brand and her and Reynold's getting married on a plantation and the rumors about her issues with castmates and her relationships with costars. Lively is a known quantity. Baldoni is not, and the LA Times was seeking to fill in that gap, not with a hit piece but with a well reported and nuanced article. It wasn't a puff piece either and I'm glad for that.

The LAT was a hit piece. That’s why people are watching Candace Owen’s. If it weren’t for social media, no one would know about the dead stunt person on Deadpool, the little bump video etc. Not one major paper has bothered to tell any of those stories but the LAT opened a piece on Baldoni by talking about someone who died of CF and previously sued but ultimately dismissed their lawsuit against wayfarer. That’s not balanced.

The "little bump" video was literally covered in the NYT article Baldoni alleges to be defamatory, and has been mentioned in other mainstream media coverage of the Lively/Baldoni conflict. The video is 10 years old and depicts an actress being rude. It is not a major news event.

The death on the set of Deadpool 2 was covered at the time, in 2019. The film's makers were fined 300k for the safety failures that led to the death, a fact reported on extensively in 2020, when it happened. None of this is news now, and has nothing to do with Baldoni or Lively and is only tangentially related to the matter via Reynold's involvement.

Meanwhile, Lively's lawsuit was filed three months ago and is ongoing. Baldoni is named in that lawsuit for potentially illegal behavior that has not previously been investigated or addressed. He also filed his own lawsuit against the NYT for defamation, and has threatened to take legal action against Marvel and Disney for the "Nicepool" character. The lawsuit against Baldoni over the movie Five Feet Apart was only dropped in May, 2024, less than a year ago, and had never been reported on in the mainstream press. It also has a surprising relationship to the current matter, as Baldoni's lawyer, Bryan Freedman, represented the plaintiff in that action against Baldoni and Wayfarer.

By the way, if you read to the end of that LA Times piece, you would have read about a female documentary director who has worked for Wayfarer and praises Baldoni and the company, and others who defend them by explaining how misinterpretations of their faith may lead to miscommunication, but contend Baldoni has never harassed anyone. It was a balanced article that provided a nuanced portrait of Baldoni, but you must get not know that if you read two paragraphs that reported verified facts that don't cast Baldoni has a downtrodden hero and then quit, since it wasn't reinforcing your own existing biases right away.

I know all this from reading reputable news sources from a variety of sources written by actual journalists, instead of getting my news from TikTok and grifters like Candace Owens.

The way the information is framed matters. The nyt article referenced the little bump video as part of the retaliation claims, framing BL as a victim instead of a mean girl. No major publication has done an in depth profile on BL the way the LAT did on Baldoni digging up every little thing in his pass, including people who thought he was “too positive”. Where’s the in depth profile on Blake about the production people she made cry, her plantation wedding she never apologized for, her issues with GG castmates. No one has done that profile.

Because you already know that stuff. And by the way, if a major publication does an in-depth profile on Lively, it will not just be a litany of negative things about her. Like the Baldoni profile, it will also include neutral and positive commentary. They will also talk to people who like her and have enjoyed working with her, just like the LA Times did with Baldoni. But somehow even a similarly framed article about Lively will be called a "puff piece" because some of you have decided to cast this conflict as Good v. Evil and can't conceptualize that everyone involved is human and thus a mix of both, that both parties might be complex people, and that this case might not hinge on Baldoni being "David" and Lively "Goliath" but on the nuances of workplace law as applied to a film set, and that Baldoni might come out on the wrong end not because he's an evil human being but because he was the director and producer of the film and he and his fellow producer may have crossed lines on the set that were not appropriate and then done the one thing you absolutely should not do if someone has made workplace complaints, and try to go after their professional and personal reputation. And that all that can be true at the same time that it might be true that Lively is tone deaf and difficult to work with, or that Ryan Reynolds threw his professional weight around, and that Baldoni and Heath might be good husbands and fathers.

So many people are buying into this reductive, simplistic perspective on this matter where everything must be black and white, good or bad. Life doesn't work that way. People are complicated. I've known people who could be incredibly kind and generous personally who also harassed people at work. I've also known people who could be difficult or annoying who have been the victims of sexual harassment or assault. I bet you know people like this too. So why is everyone acting like a toddler here? "Mean blonde lady can't be victim because she mean and stupid! Pretty man can't be bad, he pretty with nice lady wife!" There are literally episodes of Daniel Tiger with a more nuanced take on human behavior but whatever.