Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wallace astroturfs. That's what he does. He hires people to seed social media with links and comments that support whatever narrative his clients want to support.

I agree Lively is responsible for a good bit of the bad press she received last summer, and it's apparent that Baldoni's team didn't have to work as hard as they thought they would to turn public sentiment against her because of all her own stupid decisions, both in the promotion of IEWU and her previous behavior in the press. But there is clear evidence that Baldoni hired a crisis management team who outlined a plan to use Jed Wallace to turn public sentiment against Lively, and there is also evidence he was in fact hired and later credited by that team with a shift in sentiment. Whether his engagement led to a worsening in Lively's reputation does not mean there was no astroturfing. There is every indication that there absolutely was astroturfing.

I don't know why it's so hard for some of you to believe that maybe there is no "good guy" in this story. Baldoni could be right about Lively and Reynolds AND still have done some shady, dishonest stuff. I've read all complaints and while there may be a hierarchy of who is the most awful and who is the least awful, my take away is that most of these people are pretty awful and were engaged in a tit-for-tat PR battle where there were no clean hands.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone mentioned that BL likely is setting back the #Metoo movement and #Believeallwomen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm with the PP. He's obnoxious and fake. And I actually think part of the reason this whole war between Lively and him erupted is because they both take themselves too seriously and lack self-awareness about their own behavior or how it impacts other people. Lively is an entitled, self-important star who thinks her $hit don't stink, but Baldoni is a self appointed "Nice Guy" (tm) whose behavior mostly reads as "vulnerable narcissism" to me -- using his own supposed vulnerability and sensitivity to attract attention and shield himself from criticism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh please, if that was Ryan Reynolds proposal video, you would be ripping it and him to shreds. The Baldoni fan club on here is strange.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1, that comparison is bonkers. Everyone at Fox knew they were lying about Dominion, plus their reporting literally destroyed Dominion's entire business.

The only way Baldoni's case against NYT's could reach that level is if discovery reveals texts between the reporters and editors where they are like "yeah we know this guy is totally innocent, but we have to do what Lively says." And I'm sorry, but those don't exist. The NYT is a flawed entity but it's not Fox News and the people who work at NYT take the idea of their own journalistic integrity very seriously. Even if that's something they thought to themselves at the time, there is zero likelihood anyone ever admitted it in writing to one another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh please, if that was Ryan Reynolds proposal video, you would be ripping it and him to shreds. The Baldoni fan club on here is strange.

What “fan club”? Do you mean people who read all of the pleadings and were stunned at the exhibits countering every single thing she said? Guilty as charged then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh please, if that was Ryan Reynolds proposal video, you would be ripping it and him to shreds. The Baldoni fan club on here is strange.

+1, I get siding with Baldoni legally and I totally get disliking Lively and Reynolds. I find the desire to cast Baldoni as some kind of hero as bizarre. He's a middling actor and director with a super cringey personality and a desperate need for attention and validation.

One of the funny things to me about this case is that each time Baldoni comes out with texts or letters or video that exonerate him or show that Lively is a bad actor, they also tend to highlight the ways in which he's ridiculous -- a lot of it is him blatantly kissing a$$es (not just Lively's but also producers and others), him telling stories about his own life that make my eyes roll all the way back into my head, or him being super passive and wishy-washy in his role as director in a way that would have driven me absolutely crazy if I had to work with him. And everything I learn about his whole "man enough" narrative is so cringey.

I can't stand Ryan Reynolds but when I saw the clips of "Nicepool" from his movie, I felt like it was dead on in terms of sending up someone like Baldoni. Guys like that are incredibly annoying, sorry.

[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.)

PP their MTD will be primarily based on fair report

[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.

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.

Look, I think you took a first amendment or media class and think you know a lot more than you think you do. But what I’m saying is that I think there are factors that could get this to a jury- which I explained above- and once it’s in front of a jury, yes, ‘sloppiness’ can matter to people, many of whom don’t like the media, and who are not going to be overly precise about legal standards

[Anonymous]

People are defending JB due to the power imbalance,;not sure why this is so hard to understand

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wallace astroturfs. That's what he does. He hires people to seed social media with links and comments that support whatever narrative his clients want to support.

I agree Lively is responsible for a good bit of the bad press she received last summer, and it's apparent that Baldoni's team didn't have to work as hard as they thought they would to turn public sentiment against her because of all her own stupid decisions, both in the promotion of IEWU and her previous behavior in the press. But there is clear evidence that Baldoni hired a crisis management team who outlined a plan to use Jed Wallace to turn public sentiment against Lively, and there is also evidence he was in fact hired and later credited by that team with a shift in sentiment. Whether his engagement led to a worsening in Lively's reputation does not mean there was no astroturfing. There is every indication that there absolutely was astroturfing.

I don't know why it's so hard for some of you to believe that maybe there is no "good guy" in this story. Baldoni could be right about Lively and Reynolds AND still have done some shady, dishonest stuff. I've read all complaints and while there may be a hierarchy of who is the most awful and who is the least awful, my take away is that most of these people are pretty awful and were engaged in a tit-for-tat PR battle where there were no clean hands.

Wasn't Wallace the one who was yanked from the complaint? Molly McPherson's read on this was that Baldoni PR potentially astroturfed but that this won't come into play because Blake’s PR can't go after them for something they were also doing. So it's a wash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Rolling my eyes hard at your repeated reference to ‘1A’. Sorry, no insider uses that expression which is showing me you don’t have nearly the knowledge base in this area of the law you think you do. OF COURSE this case isn’t exactly like the Fox case- in some ways, the Fox case was *better* for Fox- at the beginning at least bc voter fraud and the veracity of the election was clearly a significant matter of public interest for them to report on, including what other people were claiming about a matter of great import. Yet Old Dominion survived a MTD. Can’t really say that about a petty onset scrap between a B list actress and an unknown director. Why the heck was the Times reporting on this crap in the first place? It’s off brand, other than making it into a bigger metoo story.

But my point was that discovery can sink cases for media Defendants bc there tends to be a decent amount of written materials and chatter and internal debate on stories like this, and it typically doesn’t help defendants, especially when used by a crafty Ps attorney, which Bryan Freedman is showing himself to be.

So let’s play this out, and let’s say the jury decides for Ps- a ‘crazy decision’ as you said (which I don’t agree with necessarily but whatever). You think the NYT wants to appeal based on NYT v Sullivan and see what happens there? Have you not noticed the recent strange media settlements? Think about it. It’s a very weird time for the media, and because of some of these factors, including how skilled Bryan Freedman seems to be and how much PR and coverage there is, my belief is that this case has a decent chance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People are defending JB due to the power imbalance,;not sure why this is so hard to understand

This. But to add - people are still trying to claim “she was uncomfortable” when SHE referenced oral sex in writing to him, packaged in a work conversation, and he responded by saying “I’m getting back to you late because I’ve been crying because I’ll be away from my family for 3 weeks and we’re all upset.”

There is overwhelming evidence that Baldoni is telling something as close as it gets in life like objective truth but because Lively is a beast and lied in the paper of record, he still isn’t believed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh please, if that was Ryan Reynolds proposal video, you would be ripping it and him to shreds. The Baldoni fan club on here is strange.

What “fan club”? Do you mean people who read all of the pleadings and were stunned at the exhibits countering every single thing she said? Guilty as charged then.

+1 This case is an amusing distraction from politics because it’s clearly about two elites who thought they could crush a nobody—and the tables turned because they didn’t foresee that that nobody (while being annoying and probably an idiot) would hire a pit bull of a lawyer. That’s what is so fascinating about this: if you have power it’s critical to understand its limits and how and when to wield it. Also, don’t put people in a corner unless you absolutely have to and you are aware of what they are capable of.

[Anonymous]

Also, the “she was uncomfortable” argument was really flying with middle/upper class white women. Nobody else was buying it. A woman who bragged about doing blackface and humiliated a foreigner journalist for congratulating her baby bump is not someone who takes shit from anyone and sits there being uncomfortable.