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: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!

DP

I don’t think you understand the legal issues as much as you claim to.

Anyone who thinks the Daily Mail is a reliable source of reporting doesn't understand almost anything, by design.

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.

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.

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.

DP, but I think a source really did tell them that, it's just that the source is a biased PR person.

+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.

DP. This is why the NYT piece was such a fascinating screw up to lawyers like me. Because it was essentially a fancy, well written long form version of a Daily Mail or Page 6 piece, with the extra import of added information that wasn’t fully vetted (the implication that the European journalist was part of the scheme) and claims that NYT robustly researched the piece (they obviously didn’t). And from the NYT that rarely covers celebrity gossip. It’s astounding that they got involved in this schlock like they did. I’m sure they regret it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

DP

I don’t think you understand the legal issues as much as you claim to.

Anyone who thinks the Daily Mail is a reliable source of reporting doesn't understand almost anything, by design.

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.

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.

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.

DP, but I think a source really did tell them that, it's just that the source is a biased PR person.

+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.

DP. This is why the NYT piece was such a fascinating screw up to lawyers like me. Because it was essentially a fancy, well written long form version of a Daily Mail or Page 6 piece, with the extra import of added information that wasn’t fully vetted (the implication that the European journalist was part of the scheme) and claims that NYT robustly researched the piece (they obviously didn’t). And from the NYT that rarely covers celebrity gossip. It’s astounding that they got involved in this schlock like they did. I’m sure they regret it.

Now reports are coming out that Leslie Sloan, Blakes publicist, is deep deep deep in with Meghan Twoey from the New York Times. She essentially helped hand her the Harvey Weinstein story since she worked with Harvey for so many years. So Meghan owed her big.

It definitely explains a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

this time with 4 littles though. He wants to be around for that.

It is very telling that Ryan wasn’t with Blake with any of the simple favor marketing. This reported they are living separately at this point. I’m sure they’re under a ton of stress.

I think with four kids and given their ages they will wait about five years to divorce. The two older ones will be teens and the youngest will be school-aged and it won’t look as bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

DP

I don’t think you understand the legal issues as much as you claim to.

Anyone who thinks the Daily Mail is a reliable source of reporting doesn't understand almost anything, by design.

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.

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.

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.

DP, but I think a source really did tell them that, it's just that the source is a biased PR person.

+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.

DP. This is why the NYT piece was such a fascinating screw up to lawyers like me. Because it was essentially a fancy, well written long form version of a Daily Mail or Page 6 piece, with the extra import of added information that wasn’t fully vetted (the implication that the European journalist was part of the scheme) and claims that NYT robustly researched the piece (they obviously didn’t). And from the NYT that rarely covers celebrity gossip. It’s astounding that they got involved in this schlock like they did. I’m sure they regret it.

Now reports are coming out that Leslie Sloan, Blakes publicist, is deep deep deep in with Meghan Twoey from the New York Times. She essentially helped hand her the Harvey Weinstein story since she worked with Harvey for so many years. So Meghan owed her big.

It definitely explains a lot.

WOW

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

DP

I don’t think you understand the legal issues as much as you claim to.

Anyone who thinks the Daily Mail is a reliable source of reporting doesn't understand almost anything, by design.

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.

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.

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.

DP, but I think a source really did tell them that, it's just that the source is a biased PR person.

+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.

DP. This is why the NYT piece was such a fascinating screw up to lawyers like me. Because it was essentially a fancy, well written long form version of a Daily Mail or Page 6 piece, with the extra import of added information that wasn’t fully vetted (the implication that the European journalist was part of the scheme) and claims that NYT robustly researched the piece (they obviously didn’t). And from the NYT that rarely covers celebrity gossip. It’s astounding that they got involved in this schlock like they did. I’m sure they regret it.

Now reports are coming out that Leslie Sloan, Blakes publicist, is deep deep deep in with Meghan Twoey from the New York Times. She essentially helped hand her the Harvey Weinstein story since she worked with Harvey for so many years. So Meghan owed her big.

It definitely explains a lot.

That sounds more like someone's theory than a "report" (probably reported by Baldoni's PR) but it is an interesting theory.

[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: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!

DP

I don’t think you understand the legal issues as much as you claim to.

Anyone who thinks the Daily Mail is a reliable source of reporting doesn't understand almost anything, by design.

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.

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.

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.

DP, but I think a source really did tell them that, it's just that the source is a biased PR person.

+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.

DP. This is why the NYT piece was such a fascinating screw up to lawyers like me. Because it was essentially a fancy, well written long form version of a Daily Mail or Page 6 piece, with the extra import of added information that wasn’t fully vetted (the implication that the European journalist was part of the scheme) and claims that NYT robustly researched the piece (they obviously didn’t). And from the NYT that rarely covers celebrity gossip. It’s astounding that they got involved in this schlock like they did. I’m sure they regret it.

Now reports are coming out that Leslie Sloan, Blakes publicist, is deep deep deep in with Meghan Twoey from the New York Times. She essentially helped hand her the Harvey Weinstein story since she worked with Harvey for so many years. So Meghan owed her big.

It definitely explains a lot.

That sounds more like someone's theory than a "report" (probably reported by Baldoni's PR) but it is an interesting theory.

But if you have proof of a past relationship it’s really not speculation or theory. It absolutely could be in the press because of Baldoni’s team, but it doesn’t make it factually untrue.

Just like decades of Blake’s horrible racist and clueless interviews resurfacing is part of a PR campaign, but nobody factually altered her stupid, ridiculous words.

[Anonymous]

What are the confirmed facts? The only fact I know is Sloane worked for Weinstein. A Google search pulls up a rumor she was the Twohey source, which makes this speculation. Even if a link to Sloane and Twohey were confirmed, it would still be speculation that Twohey published the Lively story because she owed her. It is clear to me, based on my own speculation, that NYT story originated with Lively, so it doesn't matter that much why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

DP

I don’t think you understand the legal issues as much as you claim to.

Anyone who thinks the Daily Mail is a reliable source of reporting doesn't understand almost anything, by design.

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.

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.

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.

DP, but I think a source really did tell them that, it's just that the source is a biased PR person.

+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.

DP. This is why the NYT piece was such a fascinating screw up to lawyers like me. Because it was essentially a fancy, well written long form version of a Daily Mail or Page 6 piece, with the extra import of added information that wasn’t fully vetted (the implication that the European journalist was part of the scheme) and claims that NYT robustly researched the piece (they obviously didn’t). And from the NYT that rarely covers celebrity gossip. It’s astounding that they got involved in this schlock like they did. I’m sure they regret it.

Now reports are coming out that Leslie Sloan, Blakes publicist, is deep deep deep in with Meghan Twoey from the New York Times. She essentially helped hand her the Harvey Weinstein story since she worked with Harvey for so many years. So Meghan owed her big.

It definitely explains a lot.

Sure does, Twohey had dreams of another Pulitzer.

[Anonymous]

Judge Liman entered a protective order in the case which seems to mostly grant Lively's attorneys what they wanted -- allows the parties to declare documents attorneys eyes only ("AEO") if they involve trade secrets but also security measures, medical information, or highly personal and intimate information about third parties, or about parties but are otherwise not directly relevant to the allegations in the complaints. Parties don't need to go through the meet and confer procedures that Freedman wanted to declare something AEO, but Freedman (or others) can later challenge those designations.

So what was it that the Freeman Fans were saying about how he was winning everything and wasn't just all bluster and show? I'm the one who provided notes from the hearing and I thought his emotion and hurt feelings was not coming off well, and that Lively's atty made good arguments. Guess who was right? (I can't access the opinion that goes along with the order, so if anyone has a copy please provide a link!)

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the update, PP! Link https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.74.0_1.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Judge Liman entered a protective order in the case which seems to mostly grant Lively's attorneys what they wanted -- allows the parties to declare documents attorneys eyes only ("AEO") if they involve trade secrets but also security measures, medical information, or highly personal and intimate information about third parties, or about parties but are otherwise not directly relevant to the allegations in the complaints. Parties don't need to go through the meet and confer procedures that Freedman wanted to declare something AEO, but Freedman (or others) can later challenge those designations.

So what was it that the Freeman Fans were saying about how he was winning everything and wasn't just all bluster and show? I'm the one who provided notes from the hearing and I thought his emotion and hurt feelings was not coming off well, and that Lively's atty made good arguments. Guess who was right? (I can't access the opinion that goes along with the order, so if anyone has a copy please provide a link!)

I’m not seeing why this is such a win for Blake. Trade secrets? Medical info? It’s pretty standard to keep that stuff confidential so it’s not really a loss.

And Baldonis side already posted that website so the tons of info is out there already.

Seems like a nothing burger to me.

[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: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!

DP

I don’t think you understand the legal issues as much as you claim to.

Anyone who thinks the Daily Mail is a reliable source of reporting doesn't understand almost anything, by design.

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.

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.

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.

DP, but I think a source really did tell them that, it's just that the source is a biased PR person.

+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.

DP. This is why the NYT piece was such a fascinating screw up to lawyers like me. Because it was essentially a fancy, well written long form version of a Daily Mail or Page 6 piece, with the extra import of added information that wasn’t fully vetted (the implication that the European journalist was part of the scheme) and claims that NYT robustly researched the piece (they obviously didn’t). And from the NYT that rarely covers celebrity gossip. It’s astounding that they got involved in this schlock like they did. I’m sure they regret it.

Now reports are coming out that Leslie Sloan, Blakes publicist, is deep deep deep in with Meghan Twoey from the New York Times. She essentially helped hand her the Harvey Weinstein story since she worked with Harvey for so many years. So Meghan owed her big.

It definitely explains a lot.

Sure does, Twohey had dreams of another Pulitzer.

And tunnel vision which can affect even the best journalists

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Lively v Wayfarer docket has a public and press phone number for today's hearing on the protective order. Anyone dialing in?

I am listening and I think Freedman is losing, but I might just dislike him a lot. He is being a bit emotional imho.

The call involving what protective order should apply took a little over an hour.

Attys for both PR firms began by arguing an attorneys eyes only PO should be issued bc the case involved trade secrets and other competitive info. So for example, a PR firm’s current biz plan for Wayfarer would not be AEO but one for another client should be (or future PR plans of a party client).

Then Lively argued the PO was needed for 3 other categories of info: security measures; medical info; and third party info that had limited relevance to case but where (under Seattle Times precedent) release would be damaging to their reputation and privacy.

Liman asked for an example here and atty said: if Baldoni were venting to a non-party friend about Lively, this could fall into that category.

Lively atty said the parties in this case make money by providing info to the press, parties have bragged intact messages about being able to provide info to the public in an untraceable way, significant risk in this case unlike in other matters before this court. Noted Ps were operating on an unlimited budget and that D had committed $100 million to ruin lives of family and make them the equivalent of dead bodies. Sanctions won’t deter behavior in such a case.

Freedman found this all highly offensive, as well as the idea that just because celebrities were involved, they should get different treatment. Said the AEO PO would improperly shift the burden on to him in going to the court to dispute categorization, rather than on parties seeking higher designation. Said parties should just use the meet and confer process, and that it would be highly unusual for him not to be able to confer with his clients on certain docs. Argued that PR firm plans at issue here are not trade secrets, and the Tarantino case in which he did himself use an AEO PO uninvolved trade secrets related to screenplay pages from Pulp Fiction. Said this was a case where no one had any intent of hurting Lively and that in fact Lively had submitted a 500 paragraph complaint alleging sexual harassment (suggesting that was excessive). Disputed particular language re paragraph 16.

Liman: Early in hearing said if he agrees to AEO PO, would require change of “likely” to “highly likely.” At end of hearing thanked parties and noted that public had great interest in case and anything that takes place in court, and any doc directly provided to court (presumably with normal PO redaction procedures in place) would also be provided to public so public knows how courts are being used.

Lively attorney also came back with 8 points, including that burden shifting wouldn’t necessarily fall overwhelmingly on Freedman since his parties would be using the AEO category as well.

I am PO who didn’t think Freedman was doing an amazing job here. By the end, I’m not sure which way the court will rule. Is Freedman right that these AEO protective orders are really only used in trade secret cases and not highly controversial cases involving third party privacy? In any case, it seemed clear from the hearing that Lively will be asking to keep certain docs AEO, either through an official AEO PO, or through the meet and confer process that allows the parties to agree to AEO docs.

Just reposting the prior notes from the 3/6 hearing where Baldoni Fans and supposed attys came back to say no, AEOs are only granted for trade secrets and nothing else and Lively's attorneys were definitely out of their depth here and Liman was clearly favoring Freedman. Someone also reposted the comments of a TikTok atty who said Lively's request would not be granted and she came off as very entitled for asking for such protection for herself (even though I noted that it appeared she was in a very large part asking for protection for third parties who did not ask to be involved in this crazy case). Seems like its time to eat your words, but I'm not holding my breath lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge Liman entered a protective order in the case which seems to mostly grant Lively's attorneys what they wanted -- allows the parties to declare documents attorneys eyes only ("AEO") if they involve trade secrets but also security measures, medical information, or highly personal and intimate information about third parties, or about parties but are otherwise not directly relevant to the allegations in the complaints. Parties don't need to go through the meet and confer procedures that Freedman wanted to declare something AEO, but Freedman (or others) can later challenge those designations.

So what was it that the Freeman Fans were saying about how he was winning everything and wasn't just all bluster and show? I'm the one who provided notes from the hearing and I thought his emotion and hurt feelings was not coming off well, and that Lively's atty made good arguments. Guess who was right? (I can't access the opinion that goes along with the order, so if anyone has a copy please provide a link!)

I’m not seeing why this is such a win for Blake. Trade secrets? Medical info? It’s pretty standard to keep that stuff confidential so it’s not really a loss.

And Baldonis side already posted that website so the tons of info is out there already.

Seems like a nothing burger to me.

lol okay Team Balboner definitely not eating words, and in fact is now saying this PO that Lively requested is actually "pretty standard." lolol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Lively v Wayfarer docket has a public and press phone number for today's hearing on the protective order. Anyone dialing in?

I am listening and I think Freedman is losing, but I might just dislike him a lot. He is being a bit emotional imho.

The call involving what protective order should apply took a little over an hour.

Attys for both PR firms began by arguing an attorneys eyes only PO should be issued bc the case involved trade secrets and other competitive info. So for example, a PR firm’s current biz plan for Wayfarer would not be AEO but one for another client should be (or future PR plans of a party client).

Then Lively argued the PO was needed for 3 other categories of info: security measures; medical info; and third party info that had limited relevance to case but where (under Seattle Times precedent) release would be damaging to their reputation and privacy.

Liman asked for an example here and atty said: if Baldoni were venting to a non-party friend about Lively, this could fall into that category.

Lively atty said the parties in this case make money by providing info to the press, parties have bragged intact messages about being able to provide info to the public in an untraceable way, significant risk in this case unlike in other matters before this court. Noted Ps were operating on an unlimited budget and that D had committed $100 million to ruin lives of family and make them the equivalent of dead bodies. Sanctions won’t deter behavior in such a case.

Freedman found this all highly offensive, as well as the idea that just because celebrities were involved, they should get different treatment. Said the AEO PO would improperly shift the burden on to him in going to the court to dispute categorization, rather than on parties seeking higher designation. Said parties should just use the meet and confer process, and that it would be highly unusual for him not to be able to confer with his clients on certain docs. Argued that PR firm plans at issue here are not trade secrets, and the Tarantino case in which he did himself use an AEO PO uninvolved trade secrets related to screenplay pages from Pulp Fiction. Said this was a case where no one had any intent of hurting Lively and that in fact Lively had submitted a 500 paragraph complaint alleging sexual harassment (suggesting that was excessive). Disputed particular language re paragraph 16.

Liman: Early in hearing said if he agrees to AEO PO, would require change of “likely” to “highly likely.” At end of hearing thanked parties and noted that public had great interest in case and anything that takes place in court, and any doc directly provided to court (presumably with normal PO redaction procedures in place) would also be provided to public so public knows how courts are being used.

Lively attorney also came back with 8 points, including that burden shifting wouldn’t necessarily fall overwhelmingly on Freedman since his parties would be using the AEO category as well.

I am PO who didn’t think Freedman was doing an amazing job here. By the end, I’m not sure which way the court will rule. Is Freedman right that these AEO protective orders are really only used in trade secret cases and not highly controversial cases involving third party privacy? In any case, it seemed clear from the hearing that Lively will be asking to keep certain docs AEO, either through an official AEO PO, or through the meet and confer process that allows the parties to agree to AEO docs.

Just reposting the prior notes from the 3/6 hearing where Baldoni Fans and supposed attys came back to say no, AEOs are only granted for trade secrets and nothing else and Lively's attorneys were definitely out of their depth here and Liman was clearly favoring Freedman. Someone also reposted the comments of a TikTok atty who said Lively's request would not be granted and she came off as very entitled for asking for such protection for herself (even though I noted that it appeared she was in a very large part asking for protection for third parties who did not ask to be involved in this crazy case). Seems like its time to eat your words, but I'm not holding my breath lol.

PP that wasn’t me from 3/6 but reading the order and I’ll say again, I don’t think this is a big win (or loss) for anyone. ‘Highly likely’ and then a carveout of that even if the info goes to truth. So not much, and even then a process to challenge the designation. Ok, so??

Baldoni’s side already did a big data dump. And in all that into that made Blake look bad, I don’t see anything that would have necessarily met these new qualifications and have been restricted.