Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re trying to convince us that major publications are covering this case in a balanced way when we can see with our own eyes they aren’t. “It’s already been reported”has never stopped any journalist from reporting a story. Netflix just dropped a new 2025 OJ doc—how many are we on now? How many Jon Benet docs? And honestly, a lot of the LAT article was selectively pulled from JB’s book, so you could say that was already out there too so no need for LAT to report it. The reality is the major papers have shown quite a pro BL bias and it’s off putting because regular people following the primary source material are viewing this case very differently than it’s being portrayed by some of the heavy hitters. Instead of lecturing me, you should demand more balanced journalism from some of these bigger papers so it doesn’t create an opening for fringe media.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re trying to convince us that major publications are covering this case in a balanced way when we can see with our own eyes they aren’t. “It’s already been reported”has never stopped any journalist from reporting a story. Netflix just dropped a new 2025 OJ doc—how many are we on now? How many Jon Benet docs? And honestly, a lot of the LAT article was selectively pulled from JB’s book, so you could say that was already out there too so no need for LAT to report it. The reality is the major papers have shown quite a pro BL bias and it’s off putting because regular people following the primary source material are viewing this case very differently than it’s being portrayed by some of the heavy hitters. Instead of lecturing me, you should demand more balanced journalism from some of these bigger papers so it doesn’t create an opening for fringe media.

Netflix is not the NYT. Is the NYT doing stories on OJ or Jon Benet? No they are not.

Arguing that the LA Times article has a "pro BL" bias but that the YouTube and TikTok creators you follow, who literally shift their "reporting" to attract more viewers because that's how they make money, is rich. But you do you. Obviously you have no interest in actually knowing the truth here, you just want a big pile on of a famous actress because she annoys you. Well, enjoy your Candace Owens then. But when Owens then pivots from this to her usual schtick about how Jews control the media and trans people are scary... well, we told you so. But by then you'll probably be like "you know, she's making some good points."

Go peddle your BS elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re trying to convince us that major publications are covering this case in a balanced way when we can see with our own eyes they aren’t. “It’s already been reported”has never stopped any journalist from reporting a story. Netflix just dropped a new 2025 OJ doc—how many are we on now? How many Jon Benet docs? And honestly, a lot of the LAT article was selectively pulled from JB’s book, so you could say that was already out there too so no need for LAT to report it. The reality is the major papers have shown quite a pro BL bias and it’s off putting because regular people following the primary source material are viewing this case very differently than it’s being portrayed by some of the heavy hitters. Instead of lecturing me, you should demand more balanced journalism from some of these bigger papers so it doesn’t create an opening for fringe media.

Netflix is not the NYT. Is the NYT doing stories on OJ or Jon Benet? No they are not.

Arguing that the LA Times article has a "pro BL" bias but that the YouTube and TikTok creators you follow, who literally shift their "reporting" to attract more viewers because that's how they make money, is rich. But you do you. Obviously you have no interest in actually knowing the truth here, you just want a big pile on of a famous actress because she annoys you. Well, enjoy your Candace Owens then. But when Owens then pivots from this to her usual schtick about how Jews control the media and trans people are scary... well, we told you so. But by then you'll probably be like "you know, she's making some good points."

Go peddle your BS elsewhere.

—-

Netflix is not the NYT. Is the NYT doing stories on OJ or Jon Benet? No they are not.

NP. PP has a point about main stream media being off here.

The NYT broke this story for Blake. Why?? Why aren’t they updating as the case progresses if their initial coverage was only a ‘fair report’ of legal proceedings??

Major hypocrisy by the NYT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re trying to convince us that major publications are covering this case in a balanced way when we can see with our own eyes they aren’t. “It’s already been reported”has never stopped any journalist from reporting a story. Netflix just dropped a new 2025 OJ doc—how many are we on now? How many Jon Benet docs? And honestly, a lot of the LAT article was selectively pulled from JB’s book, so you could say that was already out there too so no need for LAT to report it. The reality is the major papers have shown quite a pro BL bias and it’s off putting because regular people following the primary source material are viewing this case very differently than it’s being portrayed by some of the heavy hitters. Instead of lecturing me, you should demand more balanced journalism from some of these bigger papers so it doesn’t create an opening for fringe media.

Netflix is not the NYT. Is the NYT doing stories on OJ or Jon Benet? No they are not.

Arguing that the LA Times article has a "pro BL" bias but that the YouTube and TikTok creators you follow, who literally shift their "reporting" to attract more viewers because that's how they make money, is rich. But you do you. Obviously you have no interest in actually knowing the truth here, you just want a big pile on of a famous actress because she annoys you. Well, enjoy your Candace Owens then. But when Owens then pivots from this to her usual schtick about how Jews control the media and trans people are scary... well, we told you so. But by then you'll probably be like "you know, she's making some good points."

Go peddle your BS elsewhere.

—-

Netflix is not the NYT. Is the NYT doing stories on OJ or Jon Benet? No they are not.

NP. PP has a point about main stream media being off here.

The NYT broke this story for Blake. Why?? Why aren’t they updating as the case progresses if their initial coverage was only a ‘fair report’ of legal proceedings??

Major hypocrisy by the NYT

Probably because Baldoni sued them for defamation so now they don't want to touch it with new reporting.

I bet if he'd instead gone to them "the other side" they would have reported on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re trying to convince us that major publications are covering this case in a balanced way when we can see with our own eyes they aren’t. “It’s already been reported”has never stopped any journalist from reporting a story. Netflix just dropped a new 2025 OJ doc—how many are we on now? How many Jon Benet docs? And honestly, a lot of the LAT article was selectively pulled from JB’s book, so you could say that was already out there too so no need for LAT to report it. The reality is the major papers have shown quite a pro BL bias and it’s off putting because regular people following the primary source material are viewing this case very differently than it’s being portrayed by some of the heavy hitters. Instead of lecturing me, you should demand more balanced journalism from some of these bigger papers so it doesn’t create an opening for fringe media.

Netflix is not the NYT. Is the NYT doing stories on OJ or Jon Benet? No they are not.

Arguing that the LA Times article has a "pro BL" bias but that the YouTube and TikTok creators you follow, who literally shift their "reporting" to attract more viewers because that's how they make money, is rich. But you do you. Obviously you have no interest in actually knowing the truth here, you just want a big pile on of a famous actress because she annoys you. Well, enjoy your Candace Owens then. But when Owens then pivots from this to her usual schtick about how Jews control the media and trans people are scary... well, we told you so. But by then you'll probably be like "you know, she's making some good points."

Go peddle your BS elsewhere.

—-

Netflix is not the NYT. Is the NYT doing stories on OJ or Jon Benet? No they are not.

NP. PP has a point about main stream media being off here.

The NYT broke this story for Blake. Why?? Why aren’t they updating as the case progresses if their initial coverage was only a ‘fair report’ of legal proceedings??

Major hypocrisy by the NYT

Probably because Baldoni sued them for defamation so now they don't want to touch it with new reporting.

I bet if he'd instead gone to them "the other side" they would have reported on it.

Well, they claim in court papers that what they did was fair report. Obviously they know it wasn’t.

[Anonymous]

Sure sounds like Ryan thinks Blake’s hoaxes and lies are hurting his brand. Conscious uncoupling soon?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14483869/real-reason-Ryan-Reynolds-Blake-Lively-anna-kendrick.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re trying to convince us that major publications are covering this case in a balanced way when we can see with our own eyes they aren’t. “It’s already been reported”has never stopped any journalist from reporting a story. Netflix just dropped a new 2025 OJ doc—how many are we on now? How many Jon Benet docs? And honestly, a lot of the LAT article was selectively pulled from JB’s book, so you could say that was already out there too so no need for LAT to report it. The reality is the major papers have shown quite a pro BL bias and it’s off putting because regular people following the primary source material are viewing this case very differently than it’s being portrayed by some of the heavy hitters. Instead of lecturing me, you should demand more balanced journalism from some of these bigger papers so it doesn’t create an opening for fringe media.

Netflix is not the NYT. Is the NYT doing stories on OJ or Jon Benet? No they are not.

Arguing that the LA Times article has a "pro BL" bias but that the YouTube and TikTok creators you follow, who literally shift their "reporting" to attract more viewers because that's how they make money, is rich. But you do you. Obviously you have no interest in actually knowing the truth here, you just want a big pile on of a famous actress because she annoys you. Well, enjoy your Candace Owens then. But when Owens then pivots from this to her usual schtick about how Jews control the media and trans people are scary... well, we told you so. But by then you'll probably be like "you know, she's making some good points."

Go peddle your BS elsewhere.

—-

Netflix is not the NYT. Is the NYT doing stories on OJ or Jon Benet? No they are not.

NP. PP has a point about main stream media being off here.

The NYT broke this story for Blake. Why?? Why aren’t they updating as the case progresses if their initial coverage was only a ‘fair report’ of legal proceedings??

Major hypocrisy by the NYT

Probably because Baldoni sued them for defamation so now they don't want to touch it with new reporting.

I bet if he'd instead gone to them "the other side" they would have reported on it.

Well, they claim in court papers that what they did was fair report. Obviously they know it wasn’t.

What they did was fair report -- it wasn't defamation.

Do you not realize that news outlets are allowed to take a side in coverage? They are. They can't lie. The NYT didn't. The took Lively's side. That's not defamation, it's bias, and biased reporting happens all the time.

If you actually think the NYT is biased but somehow Candace Owens is not, then would you be interested in joining my MLM team? I promise you'll be a millionaire by this time next year!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sure sounds like Ryan thinks Blake’s hoaxes and lies are hurting his brand. Conscious uncoupling soon?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14483869/real-reason-Ryan-Reynolds-Blake-Lively-anna-kendrick.html

I love, and I mean LOVE, you sticking this her in the middle of a conversation about bias in reporting. The Daily Fail, a paragon of unbiased, accurate reporting!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re trying to convince us that major publications are covering this case in a balanced way when we can see with our own eyes they aren’t. “It’s already been reported”has never stopped any journalist from reporting a story. Netflix just dropped a new 2025 OJ doc—how many are we on now? How many Jon Benet docs? And honestly, a lot of the LAT article was selectively pulled from JB’s book, so you could say that was already out there too so no need for LAT to report it. The reality is the major papers have shown quite a pro BL bias and it’s off putting because regular people following the primary source material are viewing this case very differently than it’s being portrayed by some of the heavy hitters. Instead of lecturing me, you should demand more balanced journalism from some of these bigger papers so it doesn’t create an opening for fringe media.

Netflix is not the NYT. Is the NYT doing stories on OJ or Jon Benet? No they are not.

Arguing that the LA Times article has a "pro BL" bias but that the YouTube and TikTok creators you follow, who literally shift their "reporting" to attract more viewers because that's how they make money, is rich. But you do you. Obviously you have no interest in actually knowing the truth here, you just want a big pile on of a famous actress because she annoys you. Well, enjoy your Candace Owens then. But when Owens then pivots from this to her usual schtick about how Jews control the media and trans people are scary... well, we told you so. But by then you'll probably be like "you know, she's making some good points."

Go peddle your BS elsewhere.

—-

Netflix is not the NYT. Is the NYT doing stories on OJ or Jon Benet? No they are not.

NP. PP has a point about main stream media being off here.

The NYT broke this story for Blake. Why?? Why aren’t they updating as the case progresses if their initial coverage was only a ‘fair report’ of legal proceedings??

Major hypocrisy by the NYT

Probably because Baldoni sued them for defamation so now they don't want to touch it with new reporting.

I bet if he'd instead gone to them "the other side" they would have reported on it.

Well, they claim in court papers that what they did was fair report. Obviously they know it wasn’t.

What they did was fair report -- it wasn't defamation.

Do you not realize that news outlets are allowed to take a side in coverage? They are. They can't lie. The NYT didn't. The took Lively's side. That's not defamation, it's bias, and biased reporting happens all the time.

If you actually think the NYT is biased but somehow Candace Owens is not, then would you be interested in joining my MLM team? I promise you'll be a millionaire by this time next year!

I have never read, seen or watched Candace Owens, or whatever it is she does.

I disagree that what the NYT reported was purely fair report. That’s the crux of the case against them. And they have risk here. But we will have to see how it plays out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re trying to convince us that major publications are covering this case in a balanced way when we can see with our own eyes they aren’t. “It’s already been reported”has never stopped any journalist from reporting a story. Netflix just dropped a new 2025 OJ doc—how many are we on now? How many Jon Benet docs? And honestly, a lot of the LAT article was selectively pulled from JB’s book, so you could say that was already out there too so no need for LAT to report it. The reality is the major papers have shown quite a pro BL bias and it’s off putting because regular people following the primary source material are viewing this case very differently than it’s being portrayed by some of the heavy hitters. Instead of lecturing me, you should demand more balanced journalism from some of these bigger papers so it doesn’t create an opening for fringe media.

Netflix is not the NYT. Is the NYT doing stories on OJ or Jon Benet? No they are not.

Arguing that the LA Times article has a "pro BL" bias but that the YouTube and TikTok creators you follow, who literally shift their "reporting" to attract more viewers because that's how they make money, is rich. But you do you. Obviously you have no interest in actually knowing the truth here, you just want a big pile on of a famous actress because she annoys you. Well, enjoy your Candace Owens then. But when Owens then pivots from this to her usual schtick about how Jews control the media and trans people are scary... well, we told you so. But by then you'll probably be like "you know, she's making some good points."

Go peddle your BS elsewhere.

—-

Netflix is not the NYT. Is the NYT doing stories on OJ or Jon Benet? No they are not.

NP. PP has a point about main stream media being off here.

The NYT broke this story for Blake. Why?? Why aren’t they updating as the case progresses if their initial coverage was only a ‘fair report’ of legal proceedings??

Major hypocrisy by the NYT

Probably because Baldoni sued them for defamation so now they don't want to touch it with new reporting.

I bet if he'd instead gone to them "the other side" they would have reported on it.

Well, they claim in court papers that what they did was fair report. Obviously they know it wasn’t.

What they did was fair report -- it wasn't defamation.

Do you not realize that news outlets are allowed to take a side in coverage? They are. They can't lie. The NYT didn't. The took Lively's side. That's not defamation, it's bias, and biased reporting happens all the time.

If you actually think the NYT is biased but somehow Candace Owens is not, then would you be interested in joining my MLM team? I promise you'll be a millionaire by this time next year!

I have never read, seen or watched Candace Owens, or whatever it is she does.

I disagree that what the NYT reported was purely fair report. That’s the crux of the case against them. And they have risk here. But we will have to see how it plays out.

DP, but I agree, don’t think the texts should be covered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure sounds like Ryan thinks Blake’s hoaxes and lies are hurting his brand. Conscious uncoupling soon?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14483869/real-reason-Ryan-Reynolds-Blake-Lively-anna-kendrick.html

I love, and I mean LOVE, you sticking this her in the middle of a conversation about bias in reporting. The Daily Fail, a paragon of unbiased, accurate reporting!

The daily Mail is actually scrupulously vetted to the letter of the law on these issues. Their ‘bias’ is that they have no morals and will report whatever is the most scandalous and juicy, to the precise letter of what is legally permissible.

The NYT pretends to be something different. That’s the issue here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

First, newspapers that employ actual journalists ARE better sources of news than TikTok influencers. They are not infallible, but they are better.

Second, I don't believe that you are just going off the court docs and the video because Baldoni's complaint is absolutely riddled with inconsistencies, obfuscations, and even places where he straight up admits to doing really bad stuff! If you were actually reading the complaints and drawing conclusions, you wouldn't necessarily believe Lively over him, but you'd be withholding judgement on both of them. When people come out hard pro-JB, I can tell they are consuming a lot of the tabloid and influencer media that spins everything his direction, because as someone who has read both complaints cover to cover, I can tell you they do not present either party in a positive light. Even if you ONLY read JB's complaint, you come away noting that he's a very ineffective leader, that he made a lot of weird choices with regards to directing the film (including some stuff that could objectively be viewed as harassing or at a minimum unwelcome) and that the offensive they launched on Lively last summer was, at a minimum, unsavory. That doesn't mean Lively will win her suit, I'm just saying that even in his own timeline, Baldoni does not come off well.

So when I see people describing him as this innocent who just desperately wanted to make a movie about DV to help survivors, I know they are drinking the Koolaid. He's definitely not that.

That's why I found the LA Times profile to be pretty fair. It's not a puff piece but it's not a takedown. If you read it all the way through, it is a critical but truthful account of Baldoni and it leaves plenty of room for him to be innocent of SH in the Lively case. But he is, even by his own admission, not a saint and he made plenty of mistakes in making this movie. If you were really just going by the court docs and that one video, you'd see this.

The most unbiased take here is that we will probably never know 100% the truth of what happened, but also we should probably hear from more witnesses and see more footage from the set, and perhaps get more of the communications of parties presented in a less biased format than the complaints, before deciding who is right and who is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re trying to convince us that major publications are covering this case in a balanced way when we can see with our own eyes they aren’t. “It’s already been reported”has never stopped any journalist from reporting a story. Netflix just dropped a new 2025 OJ doc—how many are we on now? How many Jon Benet docs? And honestly, a lot of the LAT article was selectively pulled from JB’s book, so you could say that was already out there too so no need for LAT to report it. The reality is the major papers have shown quite a pro BL bias and it’s off putting because regular people following the primary source material are viewing this case very differently than it’s being portrayed by some of the heavy hitters. Instead of lecturing me, you should demand more balanced journalism from some of these bigger papers so it doesn’t create an opening for fringe media.

Netflix is not the NYT. Is the NYT doing stories on OJ or Jon Benet? No they are not.

Arguing that the LA Times article has a "pro BL" bias but that the YouTube and TikTok creators you follow, who literally shift their "reporting" to attract more viewers because that's how they make money, is rich. But you do you. Obviously you have no interest in actually knowing the truth here, you just want a big pile on of a famous actress because she annoys you. Well, enjoy your Candace Owens then. But when Owens then pivots from this to her usual schtick about how Jews control the media and trans people are scary... well, we told you so. But by then you'll probably be like "you know, she's making some good points."

Go peddle your BS elsewhere.

—-

Netflix is not the NYT. Is the NYT doing stories on OJ or Jon Benet? No they are not.

NP. PP has a point about main stream media being off here.

The NYT broke this story for Blake. Why?? Why aren’t they updating as the case progresses if their initial coverage was only a ‘fair report’ of legal proceedings??

Major hypocrisy by the NYT

Probably because Baldoni sued them for defamation so now they don't want to touch it with new reporting.

I bet if he'd instead gone to them "the other side" they would have reported on it.

Well, they claim in court papers that what they did was fair report. Obviously they know it wasn’t.

What they did was fair report -- it wasn't defamation.

Do you not realize that news outlets are allowed to take a side in coverage? They are. They can't lie. The NYT didn't. The took Lively's side. That's not defamation, it's bias, and biased reporting happens all the time.

If you actually think the NYT is biased but somehow Candace Owens is not, then would you be interested in joining my MLM team? I promise you'll be a millionaire by this time next year!

I have never read, seen or watched Candace Owens, or whatever it is she does.

I disagree that what the NYT reported was purely fair report. That’s the crux of the case against them. And they have risk here. But we will have to see how it plays out.

DP, but I agree, don’t think the texts should be covered.

+ 1.
Defamation by omission. Defamation by implication. And potentially false light. These are obviously tricky arguments to make against a very well funded media outlet with various press protections. But not impossible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sure sounds like Ryan thinks Blake’s hoaxes and lies are hurting his brand. Conscious uncoupling soon?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14483869/real-reason-Ryan-Reynolds-Blake-Lively-anna-kendrick.html

DP. WHOA! How new is the pay wall?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sure sounds like Ryan thinks Blake’s hoaxes and lies are hurting his brand. Conscious uncoupling soon?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14483869/real-reason-Ryan-Reynolds-Blake-Lively-anna-kendrick.html

Ryan’s a ruthless sociopathic industry climber and Blake is toxic middle aged deadweight.