Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I’m watching the abc Hulu special because why not - I didn’t know BL did a film with Woody Allen. I just can’t reconcile that someone who would work with WA truly believes her own complaints.

That's the movie she was promoting with Parker Posey when she did that interview where the journalist compliments her "baby bump" and then Lively rips into her and barely participates for the rest of the interview.

I remember when that video circulated last year (perhaps because of Baldoni's astroturfing efforts? it's all so ridiculous at this point) that aspect of it was especially annoying to me. Here's Lively promoting a movie directed by a guy who is known to be a toxic misogynist and maybe-pedophile (whether you believe the pedophile accusations or not, there is zero question as to whether Allen is a total sleezebag when it comes to women), and yet she's offended by a female journalist saying something kind and complimentary about a pregnancy that Lively had publicly announced. It was really infuriating.

There is zero evidence of astroturfing. I wish you’d stop casually lying and presenting fake facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the original complaint I am sure it said something along the lines of how they were blindsided by her list and that they had no idea that there were issues before the strike.

But in the timeline they posted, it was only a few days of filming before she called the Sony execs and they had an on set meeting. She was uncomfortable from almost day 1 and raised it right away.

Both of them continued to send their obnoxious emails to each other but her actions show that they all knew she felt uncomfortable from the beginning of filming so the list should't really have been a surprise at all.

I don't remember his amendment saying "they had no idea that there were issues." Can you point to where they say that in their documents? I think it was more along the lines of some things she raised were things they thought had been resolved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It does not appear she felt uncomfortable on set at all. [/quote
To amplify the above, here’s their communication regarding the scene she - not a writer. Not notable for her astute written talents - grabbed and decided to rewrite. She’s trying to charm him and says she doesn’t “use teeth” in her “ball busting love language.” Blake Lively is making Cool Girl blow-job jokes in writing to her boss. She is a liar, a liar, a liar.

Huh. I also haven’t read the book but “ball busting with agency” isn’t really the kind of tone I would expect to depict an abusive dynamic. It seems very odd that she’s focused on it being “yummy” as opposed to showing how these types of relationships develop. Which yes of course involve an initial honeymoon period. But abusive men do not enjoy ball-busting in any form, including in jest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It does not appear she felt uncomfortable on set at all. [/quote
To amplify the above, here’s their communication regarding the scene she - not a writer. Not notable for her astute written talents - grabbed and decided to rewrite. She’s trying to charm him and says she doesn’t “use teeth” in her “ball busting love language.” Blake Lively is making Cool Girl blow-job jokes in writing to her boss. She is a liar, a liar, a liar.

I don't disagree that she's a hypocrite but I also don't think that means she wasn't uncomfortable on set or didn't get to a point with Baldoni where his own weird behavior made her feel uncomfortable to be doing scenes with him (I think Baldoni is really faux sincere and that his "man enough" schtick would wear very thin, especially if combined with what appears to be typical SoCal weirdness like claiming he can talk to her dead dad).

Like she can suck and have totally blown everything out of proportion AND have been genuinely uncomfortable on the set and not have been lying to her husband when she told him that she didn't like the way Baldoni interacted with her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In court, will the NYTimes have to reveal when they started working on the article? What other specific things can we expect to come to light?

If justin’s case survives a MTD, yes, they will. I suspect that the NYT might file an anti SLAPP motion, but I’m not sure. My guess is justin’s case will survive those early motions and discovery will begin. And yes, the NYT will have to show timing and the internal process that led to the story being published, what they did to corroborate her story, what they did and didn’t do and said about seeking the other side’s perspective, etc.

I’m fairly alone on this thread on thinking that Justin has a real case against the NYT. This was an explosive story. I don’t think it will be hard to show they had a real confirmation bias going in to this story, their MeToo journalist wanted to fit this into another metoo framework with a PR twist, and they ignored proper journalism standards… and there was significant harm to people, including people who are arguably private figures.

But it’s also been a very wise PR move as well, and I’m sure it’s unsettled the Times and that reporter.

I don’t disagree that this will beat a MTD unless the judge has a very restrictive take on the showing needed for actual malice. but “confirmation bias” isn’t a grounds to show actual bias, and it’s not clear that “proper journalism standards” even exist such to show that they were recklessly or intentionally violated.

Yes, there are journalistic standards that publications like the Times follow. They certainly have internal rules of the road that they are supposed to follow. The Times even used to have a ‘standards’ editor as a separate role. Things like getting comment, how many sources to use and what sort of info is needed to verify statements, whether they can run a story with only off the record sources, that sort of thing. I suspect they relaxed them here, hoping they could hide behind this being a published complaint (and therefore a ‘fair report’ which gives them some protections). That’s why they came out hard and fast in a statement to respond to the allegation that they had the complaint early and that this was collaborative with BL.

These aren’t legal standards, of course. But if this gets to a jury, the Plaintiffs will introduce evidence showing how sloppy and different from usual standards this journalistic process was, how they might have willfully ignored red flags in pursuit of a juicy angle, etc. All of this will be used to show state of mind- eg whether they were negligent or showed a reckless disregard for the truth.

it would take a LOT to prove those are hard & fast standards that the Times violated here, such that it constitutes recklessness. Because a) there are no clear standards on things like how long to give for comment and b) it’s not even clear the Times would have violated that.

The law makes this very hard for a good reason. If journalists can be sued by public figures too easily then their ability to report (and make mistakes) would be severely curtailed and the public would suffer.

There are general standards, yes. You’re right, they’re not necessarily totally precise, of course. But discovery will show drafts, comments from other editors and fact checkers and suggestions they made, etc, And how loose the NYT writer played with these suggestions will absolutely come into play to show if she was sloppy and ‘wanted’ this story, leading her to have blinders on. I’m aware of NYT v Sullivan obviously and the general parameters of defamation law limitations and why they exist… but I think this case has a number of factors at play that could lead it to a jury, and sorry, juries aren’t so precise about the law, they tend to think the media is sloppy, that companies have insurance to pay out big settlement, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I’m watching the abc Hulu special because why not - I didn’t know BL did a film with Woody Allen. I just can’t reconcile that someone who would work with WA truly believes her own complaints.

That's the movie she was promoting with Parker Posey when she did that interview where the journalist compliments her "baby bump" and then Lively rips into her and barely participates for the rest of the interview.

I remember when that video circulated last year (perhaps because of Baldoni's astroturfing efforts? it's all so ridiculous at this point) that aspect of it was especially annoying to me. Here's Lively promoting a movie directed by a guy who is known to be a toxic misogynist and maybe-pedophile (whether you believe the pedophile accusations or not, there is zero question as to whether Allen is a total sleezebag when it comes to women), and yet she's offended by a female journalist saying something kind and complimentary about a pregnancy that Lively had publicly announced. It was really infuriating.

There is zero evidence of astroturfing. I wish you’d stop casually lying and presenting fake facts.

There is absolutely evidence of astroturfing. According to their own texts, Baldoni's crisis management team engaged Jed Wallace to help shift the online narrative around Lively (Wallace is known for astroturfing like this) and they later credit him, specifically, with a shift in the online narrative against Lively.

I don't like Lively but that doesn't mean Baldoni didn't also engage in very sketchy and unpleasant behaviors, sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In court, will the NYTimes have to reveal when they started working on the article? What other specific things can we expect to come to light?

If justin’s case survives a MTD, yes, they will. I suspect that the NYT might file an anti SLAPP motion, but I’m not sure. My guess is justin’s case will survive those early motions and discovery will begin. And yes, the NYT will have to show timing and the internal process that led to the story being published, what they did to corroborate her story, what they did and didn’t do and said about seeking the other side’s perspective, etc.

I’m fairly alone on this thread on thinking that Justin has a real case against the NYT. This was an explosive story. I don’t think it will be hard to show they had a real confirmation bias going in to this story, their MeToo journalist wanted to fit this into another metoo framework with a PR twist, and they ignored proper journalism standards… and there was significant harm to people, including people who are arguably private figures.

But it’s also been a very wise PR move as well, and I’m sure it’s unsettled the Times and that reporter.

I don’t disagree that this will beat a MTD unless the judge has a very restrictive take on the showing needed for actual malice. but “confirmation bias” isn’t a grounds to show actual bias, and it’s not clear that “proper journalism standards” even exist such to show that they were recklessly or intentionally violated.

Yes, there are journalistic standards that publications like the Times follow. They certainly have internal rules of the road that they are supposed to follow. The Times even used to have a ‘standards’ editor as a separate role. Things like getting comment, how many sources to use and what sort of info is needed to verify statements, whether they can run a story with only off the record sources, that sort of thing. I suspect they relaxed them here, hoping they could hide behind this being a published complaint (and therefore a ‘fair report’ which gives them some protections). That’s why they came out hard and fast in a statement to respond to the allegation that they had the complaint early and that this was collaborative with BL.

These aren’t legal standards, of course. But if this gets to a jury, the Plaintiffs will introduce evidence showing how sloppy and different from usual standards this journalistic process was, how they might have willfully ignored red flags in pursuit of a juicy angle, etc. All of this will be used to show state of mind- eg whether they were negligent or showed a reckless disregard for the truth.

it would take a LOT to prove those are hard & fast standards that the Times violated here, such that it constitutes recklessness. Because a) there are no clear standards on things like how long to give for comment and b) it’s not even clear the Times would have violated that.

The law makes this very hard for a good reason. If journalists can be sued by public figures too easily then their ability to report (and make mistakes) would be severely curtailed and the public would suffer.

It really wouldn’t be that hard to show…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I’m watching the abc Hulu special because why not - I didn’t know BL did a film with Woody Allen. I just can’t reconcile that someone who would work with WA truly believes her own complaints.

That's the movie she was promoting with Parker Posey when she did that interview where the journalist compliments her "baby bump" and then Lively rips into her and barely participates for the rest of the interview.

I remember when that video circulated last year (perhaps because of Baldoni's astroturfing efforts? it's all so ridiculous at this point) that aspect of it was especially annoying to me. Here's Lively promoting a movie directed by a guy who is known to be a toxic misogynist and maybe-pedophile (whether you believe the pedophile accusations or not, there is zero question as to whether Allen is a total sleezebag when it comes to women), and yet she's offended by a female journalist saying something kind and complimentary about a pregnancy that Lively had publicly announced. It was really infuriating.

Kjersti Flaa (interviewer) was on the Hulu special. She said no one from JB’s camp approached her and she decided it was time to release it. Said she had concerns about being blacklisted if she had released it at the time. Also BL commented on Parker Posey’s breasts during the bump conversation. It’s like crazy town.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In court, will the NYTimes have to reveal when they started working on the article? What other specific things can we expect to come to light?

If justin’s case survives a MTD, yes, they will. I suspect that the NYT might file an anti SLAPP motion, but I’m not sure. My guess is justin’s case will survive those early motions and discovery will begin. And yes, the NYT will have to show timing and the internal process that led to the story being published, what they did to corroborate her story, what they did and didn’t do and said about seeking the other side’s perspective, etc.

I’m fairly alone on this thread on thinking that Justin has a real case against the NYT. This was an explosive story. I don’t think it will be hard to show they had a real confirmation bias going in to this story, their MeToo journalist wanted to fit this into another metoo framework with a PR twist, and they ignored proper journalism standards… and there was significant harm to people, including people who are arguably private figures.

But it’s also been a very wise PR move as well, and I’m sure it’s unsettled the Times and that reporter.

I don’t disagree that this will beat a MTD unless the judge has a very restrictive take on the showing needed for actual malice. but “confirmation bias” isn’t a grounds to show actual bias, and it’s not clear that “proper journalism standards” even exist such to show that they were recklessly or intentionally violated.

Yes, there are journalistic standards that publications like the Times follow. They certainly have internal rules of the road that they are supposed to follow. The Times even used to have a ‘standards’ editor as a separate role. Things like getting comment, how many sources to use and what sort of info is needed to verify statements, whether they can run a story with only off the record sources, that sort of thing. I suspect they relaxed them here, hoping they could hide behind this being a published complaint (and therefore a ‘fair report’ which gives them some protections). That’s why they came out hard and fast in a statement to respond to the allegation that they had the complaint early and that this was collaborative with BL.

These aren’t legal standards, of course. But if this gets to a jury, the Plaintiffs will introduce evidence showing how sloppy and different from usual standards this journalistic process was, how they might have willfully ignored red flags in pursuit of a juicy angle, etc. All of this will be used to show state of mind- eg whether they were negligent or showed a reckless disregard for the truth.

it would take a LOT to prove those are hard & fast standards that the Times violated here, such that it constitutes recklessness. Because a) there are no clear standards on things like how long to give for comment and b) it’s not even clear the Times would have violated that.

The law makes this very hard for a good reason. If journalists can be sued by public figures too easily then their ability to report (and make mistakes) would be severely curtailed and the public would suffer.

It really wouldn’t be that hard to show…

of course it would be hard to show. It would be extremely hard to show and even if Baldoni puts 10 journalism professors on the record, there would still be a mountain of contradictory evidence. I’m not even sure he beats MTD on actual malice (although I have not combed through the latest.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In court, will the NYTimes have to reveal when they started working on the article? What other specific things can we expect to come to light?

If justin’s case survives a MTD, yes, they will. I suspect that the NYT might file an anti SLAPP motion, but I’m not sure. My guess is justin’s case will survive those early motions and discovery will begin. And yes, the NYT will have to show timing and the internal process that led to the story being published, what they did to corroborate her story, what they did and didn’t do and said about seeking the other side’s perspective, etc.

I’m fairly alone on this thread on thinking that Justin has a real case against the NYT. This was an explosive story. I don’t think it will be hard to show they had a real confirmation bias going in to this story, their MeToo journalist wanted to fit this into another metoo framework with a PR twist, and they ignored proper journalism standards… and there was significant harm to people, including people who are arguably private figures.

But it’s also been a very wise PR move as well, and I’m sure it’s unsettled the Times and that reporter.

I don’t disagree that this will beat a MTD unless the judge has a very restrictive take on the showing needed for actual malice. but “confirmation bias” isn’t a grounds to show actual bias, and it’s not clear that “proper journalism standards” even exist such to show that they were recklessly or intentionally violated.

Yes, there are journalistic standards that publications like the Times follow. They certainly have internal rules of the road that they are supposed to follow. The Times even used to have a ‘standards’ editor as a separate role. Things like getting comment, how many sources to use and what sort of info is needed to verify statements, whether they can run a story with only off the record sources, that sort of thing. I suspect they relaxed them here, hoping they could hide behind this being a published complaint (and therefore a ‘fair report’ which gives them some protections). That’s why they came out hard and fast in a statement to respond to the allegation that they had the complaint early and that this was collaborative with BL.

These aren’t legal standards, of course. But if this gets to a jury, the Plaintiffs will introduce evidence showing how sloppy and different from usual standards this journalistic process was, how they might have willfully ignored red flags in pursuit of a juicy angle, etc. All of this will be used to show state of mind- eg whether they were negligent or showed a reckless disregard for the truth.

it would take a LOT to prove those are hard & fast standards that the Times violated here, such that it constitutes recklessness. Because a) there are no clear standards on things like how long to give for comment and b) it’s not even clear the Times would have violated that.

The law makes this very hard for a good reason. If journalists can be sued by public figures too easily then their ability to report (and make mistakes) would be severely curtailed and the public would suffer.

There are general standards, yes. You’re right, they’re not necessarily totally precise, of course. But discovery will show drafts, comments from other editors and fact checkers and suggestions they made, etc, And how loose the NYT writer played with these suggestions will absolutely come into play to show if she was sloppy and ‘wanted’ this story, leading her to have blinders on. I’m aware of NYT v Sullivan obviously and the general parameters of defamation law limitations and why they exist… but I think this case has a number of factors at play that could lead it to a jury, and sorry, juries aren’t so precise about the law, they tend to think the media is sloppy, that companies have insurance to pay out big settlement, etc.

“sloppy” is far from “actual malice.” They may not even beat MTD if all they have is “sloppy.” the first amendment protects sloppy reporting and thank god for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I’m watching the abc Hulu special because why not - I didn’t know BL did a film with Woody Allen. I just can’t reconcile that someone who would work with WA truly believes her own complaints.

That's the movie she was promoting with Parker Posey when she did that interview where the journalist compliments her "baby bump" and then Lively rips into her and barely participates for the rest of the interview.

I remember when that video circulated last year (perhaps because of Baldoni's astroturfing efforts? it's all so ridiculous at this point) that aspect of it was especially annoying to me. Here's Lively promoting a movie directed by a guy who is known to be a toxic misogynist and maybe-pedophile (whether you believe the pedophile accusations or not, there is zero question as to whether Allen is a total sleezebag when it comes to women), and yet she's offended by a female journalist saying something kind and complimentary about a pregnancy that Lively had publicly announced. It was really infuriating.

There is zero evidence of astroturfing. I wish you’d stop casually lying and presenting fake facts.

There is absolutely evidence of astroturfing. According to their own texts, Baldoni's crisis management team engaged Jed Wallace to help shift the online narrative around Lively (Wallace is known for astroturfing like this) and they later credit him, specifically, with a shift in the online narrative against Lively.

I don't like Lively but that doesn't mean Baldoni didn't also engage in very sketchy and unpleasant behaviors, sorry.

No. Words mean things, so sorry. There is evidence that Wallace was retained, and there is evidence that over time, BookTok (I know) and celebrity-gossip sites were zoned in on how bad the promotional tour for this film was. There is no evidence that Lively’s already for-sht reputation plummeted again after Wayferer retained the PR firm due to actions of the firm. Her team of mid lawyers are asking everyone to draw an inference in lieu of anything like proof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the original complaint I am sure it said something along the lines of how they were blindsided by her list and that they had no idea that there were issues before the strike.

But in the timeline they posted, it was only a few days of filming before she called the Sony execs and they had an on set meeting. She was uncomfortable from almost day 1 and raised it right away.

Both of them continued to send their obnoxious emails to each other but her actions show that they all knew she felt uncomfortable from the beginning of filming so the list should't really have been a surprise at all.

I don't remember his amendment saying "they had no idea that there were issues." Can you point to where they say that in their documents? I think it was more along the lines of some things she raised were things they thought had been resolved.

I am trying to find the orginal complaint from Justin to see what it said exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really have an opinion yet about the case but what I do know from everything I have read and seen is that I really don't like either Blake or Justin as people. Both are obnoxious.

How is he obnoxious?

This story is exactly like Bad Art Friend. Smug mugs who came to it in December decided he’s guilty of stuff he quite evidently never ever did. His Dawn-like sincerity is a flaw against Lively’s polished like Sonya’s gross turd character. At least it explains to me why he can’t settle, and to be grateful from afar that his film partners have the money to push this hard.

I find him very fake, insincere, and smarmy in the documents. And then I saw his proposal video (that was all about him) and I decided smarmy, fake, and obnoxious.

There is nothing sincere or genuine about him. He says whatever he thinks people want to hear and is so over the top most of the time.

If you haven't seen the video where he proposes to his now wife, enjoy! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVTr5MNa_8Y&t=377s

I see that video as totally tongue-in-cheek. They probably had some inside joke that sparked it. It made me think he would be a funny guest host on SNL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In court, will the NYTimes have to reveal when they started working on the article? What other specific things can we expect to come to light?

If justin’s case survives a MTD, yes, they will. I suspect that the NYT might file an anti SLAPP motion, but I’m not sure. My guess is justin’s case will survive those early motions and discovery will begin. And yes, the NYT will have to show timing and the internal process that led to the story being published, what they did to corroborate her story, what they did and didn’t do and said about seeking the other side’s perspective, etc.

I’m fairly alone on this thread on thinking that Justin has a real case against the NYT. This was an explosive story. I don’t think it will be hard to show they had a real confirmation bias going in to this story, their MeToo journalist wanted to fit this into another metoo framework with a PR twist, and they ignored proper journalism standards… and there was significant harm to people, including people who are arguably private figures.

But it’s also been a very wise PR move as well, and I’m sure it’s unsettled the Times and that reporter.

I don’t disagree that this will beat a MTD unless the judge has a very restrictive take on the showing needed for actual malice. but “confirmation bias” isn’t a grounds to show actual bias, and it’s not clear that “proper journalism standards” even exist such to show that they were recklessly or intentionally violated.

Yes, there are journalistic standards that publications like the Times follow. They certainly have internal rules of the road that they are supposed to follow. The Times even used to have a ‘standards’ editor as a separate role. Things like getting comment, how many sources to use and what sort of info is needed to verify statements, whether they can run a story with only off the record sources, that sort of thing. I suspect they relaxed them here, hoping they could hide behind this being a published complaint (and therefore a ‘fair report’ which gives them some protections). That’s why they came out hard and fast in a statement to respond to the allegation that they had the complaint early and that this was collaborative with BL.

These aren’t legal standards, of course. But if this gets to a jury, the Plaintiffs will introduce evidence showing how sloppy and different from usual standards this journalistic process was, how they might have willfully ignored red flags in pursuit of a juicy angle, etc. All of this will be used to show state of mind- eg whether they were negligent or showed a reckless disregard for the truth.

it would take a LOT to prove those are hard & fast standards that the Times violated here, such that it constitutes recklessness. Because a) there are no clear standards on things like how long to give for comment and b) it’s not even clear the Times would have violated that.

The law makes this very hard for a good reason. If journalists can be sued by public figures too easily then their ability to report (and make mistakes) would be severely curtailed and the public would suffer.

It really wouldn’t be that hard to show…

of course it would be hard to show. It would be extremely hard to show and even if Baldoni puts 10 journalism professors on the record, there would still be a mountain of contradictory evidence. I’m not even sure he beats MTD on actual malice (although I have not combed through the latest.)

It really really won’t be that hard and this is to a jury. They aren’t super precise. And the NYT will likely have written parameters and there will likely be drafts, emails and other materials they are forced to turn over with questions or concerns set out. These are writers and media people- they tend to communicate and that can work against them in these types of cases. See the Fox Old Dominion case where texts sunk them to close to a billion dollar settlement. Fox also claimed that they were protected, they were going to fight it all the way, they were just reporting on a matter of public concern, blah blah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In court, will the NYTimes have to reveal when they started working on the article? What other specific things can we expect to come to light?

If justin’s case survives a MTD, yes, they will. I suspect that the NYT might file an anti SLAPP motion, but I’m not sure. My guess is justin’s case will survive those early motions and discovery will begin. And yes, the NYT will have to show timing and the internal process that led to the story being published, what they did to corroborate her story, what they did and didn’t do and said about seeking the other side’s perspective, etc.

I’m fairly alone on this thread on thinking that Justin has a real case against the NYT. This was an explosive story. I don’t think it will be hard to show they had a real confirmation bias going in to this story, their MeToo journalist wanted to fit this into another metoo framework with a PR twist, and they ignored proper journalism standards… and there was significant harm to people, including people who are arguably private figures.

But it’s also been a very wise PR move as well, and I’m sure it’s unsettled the Times and that reporter.

I don’t disagree that this will beat a MTD unless the judge has a very restrictive take on the showing needed for actual malice. but “confirmation bias” isn’t a grounds to show actual bias, and it’s not clear that “proper journalism standards” even exist such to show that they were recklessly or intentionally violated.

Yes, there are journalistic standards that publications like the Times follow. They certainly have internal rules of the road that they are supposed to follow. The Times even used to have a ‘standards’ editor as a separate role. Things like getting comment, how many sources to use and what sort of info is needed to verify statements, whether they can run a story with only off the record sources, that sort of thing. I suspect they relaxed them here, hoping they could hide behind this being a published complaint (and therefore a ‘fair report’ which gives them some protections). That’s why they came out hard and fast in a statement to respond to the allegation that they had the complaint early and that this was collaborative with BL.

These aren’t legal standards, of course. But if this gets to a jury, the Plaintiffs will introduce evidence showing how sloppy and different from usual standards this journalistic process was, how they might have willfully ignored red flags in pursuit of a juicy angle, etc. All of this will be used to show state of mind- eg whether they were negligent or showed a reckless disregard for the truth.

it would take a LOT to prove those are hard & fast standards that the Times violated here, such that it constitutes recklessness. Because a) there are no clear standards on things like how long to give for comment and b) it’s not even clear the Times would have violated that.

The law makes this very hard for a good reason. If journalists can be sued by public figures too easily then their ability to report (and make mistakes) would be severely curtailed and the public would suffer.

It really wouldn’t be that hard to show…

of course it would be hard to show. It would be extremely hard to show and even if Baldoni puts 10 journalism professors on the record, there would still be a mountain of contradictory evidence. I’m not even sure he beats MTD on actual malice (although I have not combed through the latest.)

It really really won’t be that hard and this is to a jury. They aren’t super precise. And the NYT will likely have written parameters and there will likely be drafts, emails and other materials they are forced to turn over with questions or concerns set out. These are writers and media people- they tend to communicate and that can work against them in these types of cases. See the Fox Old Dominion case where texts sunk them to close to a billion dollar settlement. Fox also claimed that they were protected, they were going to fight it all the way, they were just reporting on a matter of public concern, blah blah.

this case is NOTHING like the Fox Dominion case. there’s zero evidence even alleged that is similar. I don’t know how much background you have in journalism or 1A but you really are off base. That of course doesn’t mean a jury could make a crazy decision but I’m not sure the verdict would stand and I’m not even sure this passes MTD.