Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
DP I don’t think you understand the legal issues as much as you claim to. |
Anonymous
Probably. I don’t think most marriages could survive this. Problem #1 BL and JB had chemistry and shared some pretty inappropriate texts—once the dust settles, RR will have trouble making peace with her likely emotional affair. #2 she’s costing him a lot of money and hurting his brand. #3 he’s been divorced before and divorcing gets easier every time. |
Anonymous
When the roles dry up he’s going to feel old. Midlife crisis divorce and find young arm candy so he can feel younger. A Hollywood cliche. |
Anonymous
They are paywalling half the stories now. It really ruins the site. |
Anonymous
Anyone who thinks the Daily Mail is a reliable source of reporting doesn't understand almost anything, by design. |
Anonymous
so past 400 now huh, despite no real new news to discuss |
Anonymous
this time with 4 littles though. He wants to be around for that. |
Anonymous
Thanks so much for reposting this excellent comment! I have thought and referred back to this comment several times during this contentious thread and am 100% with you. Just take a peek at the Megan Markle, Jen Hatmaker, Hilaria, and Lauren Sanchez threads lol. Reposting again for truth: This is a tale as old as time. A he said she said, the he is a prominent hollywood player who hires a vicious PR firm, the internet rips the woman apart. Zero attempts to look at the situation from both sides. Please provide a single example where in a contentious dispute between a man and a woman in hollywood the woman is believed and the man is injured. It only happens when someone is SUCH a predator that they assault SO many women that it can't be explained away (weinstein/cosby). And even then they end up getting out of jail! Prediction: this turns into a 150 page thread talking about what a see you next tuesday you all think she is. Just like all the other multi hundred long page threads in this forum. There isn't one about a man though! It's ALWAYS about the woman. Examine your ingrained misogyny people. Second prediction: I get a bunch of people replying to me yelling about Blake being awful and Baldoni being her victim and I just blindly take the woman's side. I'll just get in front of all of those and tell you what I would say in response. These situations are almost always complex with different levels of power at play (in this case, while Lively and Reynolds have significantly higher household name recognition, Baldoni has extremely powerful industry connections, so is not the david to their goliath). And I believe that almost every celebrity is somewhat egotistical/narcissistic almost by the nature of the gig. Therefore it is my belief that there is almost NEVER a party completely innocent here. There is always blame to be found on both sides because it is almost always giant egos fighting with each other. But here, there is never nuance, it is always the woman sucks and the poor man we had a crush on 10 years ago because he was hot in that movie that one time is innocent. |
Anonymous
And yet you are responsible for much of those 400 pages about nothing. |
Anonymous
It is reliable in that it doesn’t pretend to be anything but what it is- mostly dumb gossipy stories about people - and it reports with legit tips and tons of photos of course. Is it hard news? Generally no. And it doesn’t pretend to be. But there is a reason it hasn’t been sued to oblivion, especially considering it has coverage outside the US where libel laws aren’t as press protective. It is not made up, and it is very careful and precise in its legality. |
Anonymous
It is "very careful" in that it couches everything as "allegedly" and "sources say." It's not that deep. It doesn't mean their coverage isn't insanely biased. They allow themselves to be used by publicists in exchange for dirt, and they have zero scruples. If your goal is unbiased or truthful media, then Daily Mail ain't it. It's trash clickbait and nothing more. |
Anonymous
Using ‘Allegedly’ and ‘reportedly’ isn’t fully protective for claims. And of course DM is entertainment and not a deep news source. It doesn’t pretend to be. Don’t read it if you don’t like it. |
Anonymous
| I am on Blake’s side now. I think the scorched earth tactics from his camp are terrible. He definitely comes off like a man with a short fuse |
Anonymous
DP, but I think a source really did tell them that, it's just that the source is a biased PR person. |
Anonymous
+1 A funny thing about this thread and other Blake Lively threads is that people will, earnestly, link to sources like the Daily Mail, Page Six, NY Post, etc. Even though if there is anything we should have learned from this lawsuit, it's that all of that is BS planted by publicists. All of it. These people are not journalists. They aren't even stenographers -- that implies they are recording what people are saying in an honest or straightforward way, like a court reporter. But they aren't. The stenographer version of a Daily Mail article would be like "Becky Smecky, publicist to Brad Pitt, tells us that Angelina Jolie has been lying on her taxes since 2017. We report this to you as part of an exchange with Smecky, wherein she has also provided us with information that Ben Affleck, also a Smecky client, has recently reunited with with ex-girlfreind Ana De Armas." You're being played! I don't even care whose side you're on here. Read the texts between Abel and Nathan, between Leslie Sloane and tabloid reporters, etc. It's all crafted narrative. It's all BS. This is also why I intend to wait for actual testimony of parties and full transcripts of texts and emails before making my mind up about this case. I do not trust any of the spin, including the "analysis" of people on TikTok and YouTube, many of whom I am confident are either on the payroll of one side or the other, or getting something of value in return for favorable spin. |