Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nope. Wallace is a central figure in Lively's complaint and they are currently requesting a deposition of him.

[Anonymous]

Waaah the mean scary male lawyer can’t depose me but we depose everyone….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s just not accurate at all. The P don’t have to show the NYT definitely knew she was lying, the P will just try to show there was a suggestion or question about digging more into Baldonis side before publishing that the NYT didn’t undertake. Something that should have been a red flag. That could be enough to get it to a jury to decide as a question of fact, and sorry, juries just aren’t they precise. You also seem to be forgetting that some of the Ps are possibly private figures, so the standard is negligence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I just understand people can be complicated and that a person can joke with someone about oral sex in a text message and then ALSO be uncomfortable around that person later.

It's very likely Lively is, personally, a huge hypocrite when it comes to discussing or addressing sex. She was also a big hypocrite in that "baby bump" interview where she tore into the interviewer for asking about her baby bump and then later commented on the interviewer's baby bump (interviewer was not pregnant) and made comments about Parker Posey's boobs.

Blake Lively sucks. She has a crap personality.

But that doesn't mean she did not, in fact, feel uncomfortable around Baldoni on set. That's just not how feelings work. Asserting "she didn't feel uncomfortable" because at other points she discussed things of a sexual nature with Baldoni doesn't hold water for me because of course she could have. Also the nature of their relationship could change, they could both take intervening action that would change their feelings towards each other.

Are your feelings towards and about other people static and unchanging over time and no matter the setting, or are they far more variable? Mine are variable. I am certain you would find joking texts between me and a former friend, for instance, in which I casually joke specifically about the subject that would later ruin our friendship. Because in the interim I found out that friend was gossiping about me, and that subject, in a very hurtful way. My attitude changed. This is normal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s just not accurate at all. The P don’t have to show the NYT definitely knew she was lying, the P will just try to show there was a suggestion or question about digging more into Baldonis side before publishing that the NYT didn’t undertake. Something that should have been a red flag. That could be enough to get it to a jury to decide as a question of fact, and sorry, juries just aren’t they precise. You also seem to be forgetting that some of the Ps are possibly private figures, so the standard is negligence.

Baldoni will be deemed a public figure. The PR people might be considered private people, but Baldoni will be deemed a public figure, no question.

In which case, no, at least for his case, your analysis is wrong. They are going to have to show actual malice and there isn't any. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Waaah the mean scary male lawyer can’t depose me but we depose everyone….

Maybe he will make khaleesi feel uncomfortable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yep. It’s also why the notes about her well-earned reputation of having all the charm of stepped-on sht is actually relevant. I have known she’s a turd for a long, long time, and I never watched Gossip Girl. I loved Michael K and Dlisted, and Lively’s behavior was widely remarked up and derided. Among POC, she was reputed to be racist based on actual verifiable stuff - the plantation wedding. Preserve. The blackface. Claiming her Sean Penn’s Twin face gave her “LA face with a Compton booty.” And it is germane to today - she is reputed to have some kind of financial interest in the busted-a$$ designer Magnolia Pearl, and she wore the uh we will call it fashion in this movie - after she grabbed the power to style her character. Magnolia Pearl released a branding video called “the plantation” in 2012, where white blonde ugly as hell “models” danced around a dirt field with a plow to market oversized frilly $700 overalls.

My point is that she already had a horrific rep for a very long time apart from third-rail topics like Ben Affleck, Harvey Weinstein, and Ryan Reynolds/Scarlett Johansson. And this rep existed a decade before Baldoni bought the rights to direct this movie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yup. In Dominion they had Rupeet Murdoch literally saying he knew it was false. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/03/07/media/fox-news-dominion-lawsuit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Waaah the mean scary male lawyer can’t depose me but we depose everyone….

Maybe he will make khaleesi feel uncomfortable?

In fairness I would not want to be deposed by that guy even if I was 100% innocent and correct because he is incredibly aggressive and I am sure it would be exhausting no matter what.

Though the solution to that is to hire an equally aggressive attorney who will protect you and make sure he doesn't totally railroad you in the deposition. I don't see how Lively could possibly get a court to agree she doesn't have to be deposed by Baldoni's lead lawyer who was obviously hired for his agression.

[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.

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

please cite to the facts alleged that tend to show actual malice.

[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: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.

That’s just not accurate at all. The P don’t have to show the NYT definitely knew she was lying, the P will just try to show there was a suggestion or question about digging more into Baldonis side before publishing that the NYT didn’t undertake. Something that should have been a red flag. That could be enough to get it to a jury to decide as a question of fact, and sorry, juries just aren’t they precise. You also seem to be forgetting that some of the Ps are possibly private figures, so the standard is negligence.

Baldoni will be deemed a public figure. The PR people might be considered private people, but Baldoni will be deemed a public figure, no question.

In which case, no, at least for his case, your analysis is wrong. They are going to have to show actual malice and there isn't any. Sorry.

Sorry, you’re just clearly not educated in this area of the law other than maybe knowing basic first amendment talking points. You really just can’t say at this stage that there is absolutely no way actual malice (or negligence) could be found. It’s impossible without seeing how discovery plays out.

The MTD will likely rise or fall on fair report, not AM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

True the first amendment has nothing to do with defamation lol.

Obviously the legal and media landscape are changing quickly but you keep on acting like there is likely to be ANYTHING similar to what Fox did - and I do not believe it has been alleged and nor will it come out in discovery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s just not accurate at all. The P don’t have to show the NYT definitely knew she was lying, the P will just try to show there was a suggestion or question about digging more into Baldonis side before publishing that the NYT didn’t undertake. Something that should have been a red flag. That could be enough to get it to a jury to decide as a question of fact, and sorry, juries just aren’t they precise. You also seem to be forgetting that some of the Ps are possibly private figures, so the standard is negligence.

Absolutely wrong. “Should have been a red flags” and “maybe there is something there” are not the legal standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yep. It’s also why the notes about her well-earned reputation of having all the charm of stepped-on sht is actually relevant. I have known she’s a turd for a long, long time, and I never watched Gossip Girl. I loved Michael K and Dlisted, and Lively’s behavior was widely remarked up and derided. Among POC, she was reputed to be racist based on actual verifiable stuff - the plantation wedding. Preserve. The blackface. Claiming her Sean Penn’s Twin face gave her “LA face with a Compton booty.” And it is germane to today - she is reputed to have some kind of financial interest in the busted-a$$ designer Magnolia Pearl, and she wore the uh we will call it fashion in this movie - after she grabbed the power to style her character. Magnolia Pearl released a branding video called “the plantation” in 2012, where white blonde ugly as hell “models” danced around a dirt field with a plow to market oversized frilly $700 overalls.

My point is that she already had a horrific rep for a very long time apart from third-rail topics like Ben Affleck, Harvey Weinstein, and Ryan Reynolds/Scarlett Johansson. And this rep existed a decade before Baldoni bought the rights to direct this movie.

This is all a good example of why Lively is a pretty crappy person and very unlikeable. I agree.

It is not even remotely germane to the legal question of whether she was, in fact, "uncomfortable" on the set of this movie with Baldoni. Like not even a little bit relevant.

[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.

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

please cite to the facts alleged that tend to show actual malice.

As I pointed out already, those will come out in discovery, but at this stage the judge must assess the case in the view most favorable to the Ps in deciding whether to move it forward or not. You keep jumping to discussing AM because I think you know that general standard from your intro media law class, but right now this is really more of a Fair Report anti SLAPP case.