Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh. I had pretty much assumed that Jones showing Leslie Sloane those texts likely violated the confidentiality clause in her contract with Wayfarer before, but now reading the clause itself, I could see some ways to lawyer herself out of it or minimize exposure.

A lot depends on exactly what Jones sent to Sloane. I doubt she showed her all the texts but I could be wrong.

If she just sent her texts between Nathan and Abel where they don't actually disclose anything that Baldoni or anyone at Wayfarer told them, she might be able to wiggle out of this.

I'd have to look at the texts to see if there are any that could potentially slip through a crack in that clause. Maybe not, but that clause is more narrow than I expected.

You’re thinking too hard. It doesn’t say confidentiality only pertains to information wayfarer told them. It references excluding information independently developed by Joneswork without reliance on information disclosed by clients (for example, this would include things like generic plans and campaigns that aren’t tailored to the client, like a pitch). Everything Abel was working on with Nathan was very specific to Wayfarer and their PR crisis during the premiere and was based on a lot of background information that had been given to them by Wayfarer. It was confidential work product that honestly belonged to the client (wayfarer) not to Jones and should never have been shared.

So you don’t think all the Abel/Nathan texts about hey, you know what we can do (just don’t put it in writing) we can bury her, hey look it’s working! Hey Justin is worried we are using bots but I told him the work we’re doing is much more targeted and specific — you don’t think that should have been shared ever or released to the public?

That stuff has a stank on it. I am happy for that to be discussed and maybe something good can come of it. I can understand you like Baldoni and this doesn’t make him look good. But I am glad that material was released.

I agree -- I'm glad this stuff came out if only to better educate the public (me) on how PR works. I honestly didn't realize how deep it went.

I just saw something that has been circulating regarding a PR attack on Meghan Markle and it made me think of this -- I only dip my toe in the online conversation about Meghan but am always shocked at the level of vitriol against her in those conversations. Not because I think she's so great (I think she's somewhere between annoying and innocuous) but because I don't get why people are so mad at her. Well... maybe they aren't. Maybe it's all an organized campaign. That actually makes more sense.

I dont' actually care if Stephanie Jones violated her confidentiality agreement with Wayfarer. I think revealing this stuff about PR is like a public service. I know Jones didn't think of it that way (she's part of the problem, she just thought she was getting back at a rival) but I think of it that way because now I can be more skeptical of ALL of this stuff, whether it's Abel and Nathan putting it out there, or Jones, or Sloane, or any of them. I'm a much more skeptical person at this point and that's a good thing.

I’m much more skeptical of mainstream media now than anything. If it weren’t for content creators, JB would be in trouble b/c the mainstream media has not covered this story in a balanced way. I think that’s part of the reason people are so interested in this case.

Someone on one of the podcasts also mentioned that WME dropped JB but not Diddy, which if true shows they don’t actually care about the allegations and just dropped JB b/c Ryan wanted them to. The power dynamics here are fascinating, which makes it all the more laughable that Blake is trying so hard to paint Baldoni as her powerful boss and herself as the vulnerable victim when nothing could be further from the truth.

Totally agree. So many content creators doing deep dives, where is mainstream media just gives the quick two minute version. And don’t get me started on the New York Times, which lost all credibility with this story. I don’t know if Megan Twoey was manipulated or bought or what. But I don’t think survivors will continue to go to her with their story.

There’s also a new piece from vanity fair. It’s not as aggressive as the NYT, LAT and glamour articles but it’s pro BL and basically says conservative media is trying to paint BL as Amber Heard. So we have the NYT’s hit piece, the LAT’s somewhat softer hit piece accusing JB of toxic positivity, the glamour piece attacking moms for not supporting “one of their own” and now the Vanity Fair piece. As a liberal, I’m annoyed the mainstream media is not holding BL accountable and is instead scapegoating everyone they can. It’s not moms who’s undermining the me too movement, it’s BL for bringing these frivolous accusations to advance her own agenda.

I see there is a Vanity Fair article from yesterday called “Why Conservative Media Lives Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni’s Showdown” which I can’t read (paywall) — I would have thought with that headline it was pointing out some of the obvious misogyny problems inherent in conservative media taking up Baldoni’s position in this circus that Taylor Lorentz was pointing out three weeks ago, but PP above seems to be saying it’s sympathetic to Baldoni. Okay.

For my part (PP PO lawyer so you know where this is going) I am inherently distrustful of any position Candace Owens, Megyn Kelly, or Joe Rogan are taking and I don’t think they’re taking the culture anywhere good. I just finished the audiobook expose about Facebook (Careless People) and it was eye opening re how social media users are so easily manipulated into changing their minds because the mass aggregation of data allows companies like Facebook to target extremely effective advertising/articles at them I. Ways they know and have studied will be most effective. Getting the news through social media is not going to free us. It just gets us believing in different, opposing realities.

No, it’s sympathetic to BL similar to the Taylor Lorentz piece as you assumed (I think you misread). I’m also generally skeptical of conservative media but I’m annoyed that mainstream media doesn’t see the role they’re playing in driving people into the arms of conservative media.

[Anonymous]

That's a decent summary but is missing several key pieces:

- The "PR problems" Jones was having in August of last year are largely attributable to a Business Insider article that came out accusing her of workplace bullying and citing "unnamed sources." Jones believed, and I think she's probably correct, that Abel was a major source for this piece. Which was especially frustrating to Jones because Abel was already on her way out the door.

- Jones decision to fire Abel before her official last day and take her phone and search it was almost certainly mostly motivated by Jones' belief that Abel had been talking to Business Insider and was behind the hit piece. She was also unhappy about Abel taking Wayfarer with her, but as the PP noted, Wayfarer was a much smaller client than the rest of Jones' roster. Jones was much more worried about how the BI piece would impact her major clients than losing Wayfarer.

- Melissa Nathan's role here is also big. Jones does NOT like Melissa Nathan, and advised strongly against hiring Nathan to do Wayfarer's crisis PR. There are texts between Abel and Jones and Able and Nathan on this that are very revealing. This is likely when Jones started becoming suspicious that Abel was up to something, because Abel essentially ignores Jones strong recommendation not to hire Nathan (Jones recommended several other crisis firms). At least some of Jones' dislike of Nathan was professional rivalry, but it also appears that Jones had concerns that Nathan has a rep for engaging in "shady" PR work. This is reasonable because of Nathan's history -- she repped Depp during the Depp/Heard trial, and she repped Trump during his first impeachment. PR folks work for all kinds of people, but those representations stand out as being fringe and the Depp representation, in particular, for involving a lot of SM manipulation and astroturfing that is considered less legitimate and "dirtier" than other PR tactics. Notable that these are also precisely the tactics Lively is alleging in her lawsuit as being the retaliation tactics, so the fact that Jones lobbied so heavily against Nathan is notable.

I will note here that all the PR folks involved in this case are problematic -- I'm not taking a side here. Jones probably is a workplace bully (the PR industry is full of them) and Abel might have had legitimate gripes against her. But also Abel was idiotic in how she handled her exit from Jonesworks, both everything with her phone (just stupid) to the way she was burning Jones (unnecessary -- Abel was leaving regardless and could have left on okay terms and saved herself a lot of other problems). Nathan *is* a shady PR rep, and her shadiness is a large part of what is causing Wayfarer issues now -- it is some of her language in these texts that is most problematic, like when she says that they can bury anyone, and tells Abel that they can't put what the intend to do for Wayfarer in writing. Leslie Sloane (Lively's rep) was really dumb letting Nathan know that she'd seen the texts with Abel off Abel's phone.

It is more than a little hilarious to me that all these celebs hired these PR people to solve their PR problems, and every single one of the PR people did at least one dumb thing that is CAUSING their clients PR problems (or in Jones case, her own PR problems).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's a decent summary but is missing several key pieces:

- The "PR problems" Jones was having in August of last year are largely attributable to a Business Insider article that came out accusing her of workplace bullying and citing "unnamed sources." Jones believed, and I think she's probably correct, that Abel was a major source for this piece. Which was especially frustrating to Jones because Abel was already on her way out the door.

- Jones decision to fire Abel before her official last day and take her phone and search it was almost certainly mostly motivated by Jones' belief that Abel had been talking to Business Insider and was behind the hit piece. She was also unhappy about Abel taking Wayfarer with her, but as the PP noted, Wayfarer was a much smaller client than the rest of Jones' roster. Jones was much more worried about how the BI piece would impact her major clients than losing Wayfarer.

- Melissa Nathan's role here is also big. Jones does NOT like Melissa Nathan, and advised strongly against hiring Nathan to do Wayfarer's crisis PR. There are texts between Abel and Jones and Able and Nathan on this that are very revealing. This is likely when Jones started becoming suspicious that Abel was up to something, because Abel essentially ignores Jones strong recommendation not to hire Nathan (Jones recommended several other crisis firms). At least some of Jones' dislike of Nathan was professional rivalry, but it also appears that Jones had concerns that Nathan has a rep for engaging in "shady" PR work. This is reasonable because of Nathan's history -- she repped Depp during the Depp/Heard trial, and she repped Trump during his first impeachment. PR folks work for all kinds of people, but those representations stand out as being fringe and the Depp representation, in particular, for involving a lot of SM manipulation and astroturfing that is considered less legitimate and "dirtier" than other PR tactics. Notable that these are also precisely the tactics Lively is alleging in her lawsuit as being the retaliation tactics, so the fact that Jones lobbied so heavily against Nathan is notable.

I will note here that all the PR folks involved in this case are problematic -- I'm not taking a side here. Jones probably is a workplace bully (the PR industry is full of them) and Abel might have had legitimate gripes against her. But also Abel was idiotic in how she handled her exit from Jonesworks, both everything with her phone (just stupid) to the way she was burning Jones (unnecessary -- Abel was leaving regardless and could have left on okay terms and saved herself a lot of other problems). Nathan *is* a shady PR rep, and her shadiness is a large part of what is causing Wayfarer issues now -- it is some of her language in these texts that is most problematic, like when she says that they can bury anyone, and tells Abel that they can't put what the intend to do for Wayfarer in writing. Leslie Sloane (Lively's rep) was really dumb letting Nathan know that she'd seen the texts with Abel off Abel's phone.

It is more than a little hilarious to me that all these celebs hired these PR people to solve their PR problems, and every single one of the PR people did at least one dumb thing that is CAUSING their clients PR problems (or in Jones case, her own PR problems).

One thing about Melissa Nathan—there are texts between BL’s publicist Leslie Sloane and I think reporters or someone else both saying how ridiculous the smearing of Nathan was (someone, probably Jones, was the source for an article saying Baldoni’s new crisis PR repped Johnny Depp). It’s similar to the bad press BL is getting for hiring Shapiro. It gets clicks but doesn’t really mean anything. Just conspiracy theories. Basically, it showed Sloane didn’t think Nathan deserved to be smeared like that b/c of who she had repped in the past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh. I had pretty much assumed that Jones showing Leslie Sloane those texts likely violated the confidentiality clause in her contract with Wayfarer before, but now reading the clause itself, I could see some ways to lawyer herself out of it or minimize exposure.

A lot depends on exactly what Jones sent to Sloane. I doubt she showed her all the texts but I could be wrong.

If she just sent her texts between Nathan and Abel where they don't actually disclose anything that Baldoni or anyone at Wayfarer told them, she might be able to wiggle out of this.

I'd have to look at the texts to see if there are any that could potentially slip through a crack in that clause. Maybe not, but that clause is more narrow than I expected.

You’re thinking too hard. It doesn’t say confidentiality only pertains to information wayfarer told them. It references excluding information independently developed by Joneswork without reliance on information disclosed by clients (for example, this would include things like generic plans and campaigns that aren’t tailored to the client, like a pitch). Everything Abel was working on with Nathan was very specific to Wayfarer and their PR crisis during the premiere and was based on a lot of background information that had been given to them by Wayfarer. It was confidential work product that honestly belonged to the client (wayfarer) not to Jones and should never have been shared.

So you don’t think all the Abel/Nathan texts about hey, you know what we can do (just don’t put it in writing) we can bury her, hey look it’s working! Hey Justin is worried we are using bots but I told him the work we’re doing is much more targeted and specific — you don’t think that should have been shared ever or released to the public?

That stuff has a stank on it. I am happy for that to be discussed and maybe something good can come of it. I can understand you like Baldoni and this doesn’t make him look good. But I am glad that material was released.

I agree -- I'm glad this stuff came out if only to better educate the public (me) on how PR works. I honestly didn't realize how deep it went.

I just saw something that has been circulating regarding a PR attack on Meghan Markle and it made me think of this -- I only dip my toe in the online conversation about Meghan but am always shocked at the level of vitriol against her in those conversations. Not because I think she's so great (I think she's somewhere between annoying and innocuous) but because I don't get why people are so mad at her. Well... maybe they aren't. Maybe it's all an organized campaign. That actually makes more sense.

I dont' actually care if Stephanie Jones violated her confidentiality agreement with Wayfarer. I think revealing this stuff about PR is like a public service. I know Jones didn't think of it that way (she's part of the problem, she just thought she was getting back at a rival) but I think of it that way because now I can be more skeptical of ALL of this stuff, whether it's Abel and Nathan putting it out there, or Jones, or Sloane, or any of them. I'm a much more skeptical person at this point and that's a good thing.

I’m much more skeptical of mainstream media now than anything. If it weren’t for content creators, JB would be in trouble b/c the mainstream media has not covered this story in a balanced way. I think that’s part of the reason people are so interested in this case.

Someone on one of the podcasts also mentioned that WME dropped JB but not Diddy, which if true shows they don’t actually care about the allegations and just dropped JB b/c Ryan wanted them to. The power dynamics here are fascinating, which makes it all the more laughable that Blake is trying so hard to paint Baldoni as her powerful boss and herself as the vulnerable victim when nothing could be further from the truth.

Totally agree. So many content creators doing deep dives, where is mainstream media just gives the quick two minute version. And don’t get me started on the New York Times, which lost all credibility with this story. I don’t know if Megan Twoey was manipulated or bought or what. But I don’t think survivors will continue to go to her with their story.

There’s also a new piece from vanity fair. It’s not as aggressive as the NYT, LAT and glamour articles but it’s pro BL and basically says conservative media is trying to paint BL as Amber Heard. So we have the NYT’s hit piece, the LAT’s somewhat softer hit piece accusing JB of toxic positivity, the glamour piece attacking moms for not supporting “one of their own” and now the Vanity Fair piece. As a liberal, I’m annoyed the mainstream media is not holding BL accountable and is instead scapegoating everyone they can. It’s not moms who’s undermining the me too movement, it’s BL for bringing these frivolous accusations to advance her own agenda.

I see there is a Vanity Fair article from yesterday called “Why Conservative Media Lives Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni’s Showdown” which I can’t read (paywall) — I would have thought with that headline it was pointing out some of the obvious misogyny problems inherent in conservative media taking up Baldoni’s position in this circus that Taylor Lorentz was pointing out three weeks ago, but PP above seems to be saying it’s sympathetic to Baldoni. Okay.

For my part (PP PO lawyer so you know where this is going) I am inherently distrustful of any position Candace Owens, Megyn Kelly, or Joe Rogan are taking and I don’t think they’re taking the culture anywhere good. I just finished the audiobook expose about Facebook (Careless People) and it was eye opening re how social media users are so easily manipulated into changing their minds because the mass aggregation of data allows companies like Facebook to target extremely effective advertising/articles at them I. Ways they know and have studied will be most effective. Getting the news through social media is not going to free us. It just gets us believing in different, opposing realities.

No, it’s sympathetic to BL similar to the Taylor Lorentz piece as you assumed (I think you misread). I’m also generally skeptical of conservative media but I’m annoyed that mainstream media doesn’t see the role they’re playing in driving people into the arms of conservative media.

Oh I did misread that, sorry. They both have Bs and sometimes I get the initials mixed up. My bad.

[Anonymous]

Footnote 10 in Lively’s amended complaint makes clear that Lively obtained the PR texts from Jonesworks through a civil subpoena to Jonesworks. Lively produced the texts etc in the manner in which they were produced to her through that subpoena, with limited redactions of names and numbers for privacy reasons. The footnote goes on to note that Lively at all times thought Jonesworks had lawfully maintained and produced those documents.

Lively’s amended complaint says Lively got the docs from Jonesworks that it published in its CA complaint through its own lawful, civil subpoena (leaving open the possibility that Sloane may have seen the texts before the texts were used in the complaint, I think). I don’t think anyone is saying jones got the docs via a subpoena, just through legal means. (Sorry if I have misunderstood what folks are disputing here.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Footnote 10 in Lively’s amended complaint makes clear that Lively obtained the PR texts from Jonesworks through a civil subpoena to Jonesworks. Lively produced the texts etc in the manner in which they were produced to her through that subpoena, with limited redactions of names and numbers for privacy reasons. The footnote goes on to note that Lively at all times thought Jonesworks had lawfully maintained and produced those documents.

Lively’s amended complaint says Lively got the docs from Jonesworks that it published in its CA complaint through its own lawful, civil subpoena (leaving open the possibility that Sloane may have seen the texts before the texts were used in the complaint, I think). I don’t think anyone is saying jones got the docs via a subpoena, just through legal means. (Sorry if I have misunderstood what folks are disputing here.)

+1, this is also my understanding, I don't understand the confusion to be honest. There's no way there was not a subpoena because Lively has stated, multiple times via multiple court documents, that there was one. In CA it's actually not that hard to get a subpoena for records related to potential litigation -- it's a subpoena to preserve or retain records (to prevent their destruction) and because they almost certainly had Jonesworks sign off on the subpoena, it would not be that hard to get a judge to grant it.

Jones likely showed Sloane some of the texts before any subpoena was filed, which yeah probably violated the confidentiality clause with Wayfarer. That's Jones problem. But once Sloane knew the texts existed, she could then probably provide an affidavit for Lively's subpoena describing the texts she'd seen and what they said, which would make it fairly easy for Lively to argue that she needed access to the texts so she could find out if she had standing to sue.

None of this seems that irregular to me, except Jones burning her own client, but they were also leaving her to join Abel so even that doesn't really surprise me. From Lively's perspective, this is all on the up and up. Jones will have to battle out the confidentiality issue herself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Footnote 10 in Lively’s amended complaint makes clear that Lively obtained the PR texts from Jonesworks through a civil subpoena to Jonesworks. Lively produced the texts etc in the manner in which they were produced to her through that subpoena, with limited redactions of names and numbers for privacy reasons. The footnote goes on to note that Lively at all times thought Jonesworks had lawfully maintained and produced those documents.

Lively’s amended complaint says Lively got the docs from Jonesworks that it published in its CA complaint through its own lawful, civil subpoena (leaving open the possibility that Sloane may have seen the texts before the texts were used in the complaint, I think). I don’t think anyone is saying jones got the docs via a subpoena, just through legal means. (Sorry if I have misunderstood what folks are disputing here.)

+1, this is also my understanding, I don't understand the confusion to be honest. There's no way there was not a subpoena because Lively has stated, multiple times via multiple court documents, that there was one. In CA it's actually not that hard to get a subpoena for records related to potential litigation -- it's a subpoena to preserve or retain records (to prevent their destruction) and because they almost certainly had Jonesworks sign off on the subpoena, it would not be that hard to get a judge to grant it.

Jones likely showed Sloane some of the texts before any subpoena was filed, which yeah probably violated the confidentiality clause with Wayfarer. That's Jones problem. But once Sloane knew the texts existed, she could then probably provide an affidavit for Lively's subpoena describing the texts she'd seen and what they said, which would make it fairly easy for Lively to argue that she needed access to the texts so she could find out if she had standing to sue.

None of this seems that irregular to me, except Jones burning her own client, but they were also leaving her to join Abel so even that doesn't really surprise me. From Lively's perspective, this is all on the up and up. Jones will have to battle out the confidentiality issue herself.

I think this fits the theory that there was no subpoena initially but that BL’s attorneys got one after the fact to cure the original sin. I think that’s plausible and as we’ve all said probably doesn’t impact the case against BL, but the lack of subpoena for the initial disclosure impacts the case against Jones.

[Anonymous]

I think the only open issue is, if there was a subpoena and I tend to believe there was, what open case was it attached to? The first case I know of is the Lively CRD complaint, but that relies on the texts, so it didn't predate the subpoena.

And also why wasn’t anyone on notice of the subpoena, but i guess the thinking there is Jonesworks as the owner of the phone was given notice and didn't object. I posted her contract with Wayfarer a few pages ago and it said she could turn things over by court order and I don't believe it required her to give Wayfarer notice although I imagine she would have had they been on better terms (and being married to the WME guy she sides with Lively and Reynolds). And then another PP noted as to Abel this may be considered work product and not employment records.

[Anonymous]

PO obsessed atty. Going through Livelys amended complaint to look at the timeline, this Exhibit D (the 8/2/25 “scenario planning” doc that Nathan circulated to Baldoni before the premiere) is really pretty awful imho. It discusses various options for clear manipulation of people and public opinion - I mean, I guess that’s what PR reps do. They talk about dredging up old beefs Lively had with people (like is happening now ha), how problems on set were all due to Lively (again from my perspective, not true), etc.

It ends with this bullet point: “As part of this [effort to seed doubt about Lively messaging], our team can also explore planting stories about the weaponization of feminism and how people in BL’s circle like Taylor Swift, have been accused of utilizing these tactics to ‘bully’ into getting what they want.”

Wow, they were going to go after Swift full tilt if Swift poked her head out. They were going to attack Swift’s feminist credentials, in basically the same way outlets and social media that are now going after Lively. Are you weaponizing feminism, ladies? Make sure you do your little jobs and don’t make a fuss for the men in your lives, even if they’re harassing you.

I’m audio booking another book now that discusses Kate Mann’s book “Down Girl” that discusses the role of retribution in sexism and misogyny. Mann notes that misogyny had been understood as a kind of synonym for sexism, but is actually quite different.

Sexism is the hierarchical system that puts men at the top, where men (if they are white, CIS, hetero etc) are then subject to fewer societal and moral impediments to success.

Misogyny is different — it’s not some naive “hating women because they are women” feeling. It’s actually a moralistic tool of social control and punishment that reaches out to out us back in our place when we reach outside our roles in the sexist heirarchy. Misogyny is the punishment arm of sexism, and it comes into play most as retribution for perceived overreach.

I think that’s why this story is getting picked up in conservative circles, and that’s also why there were similar themes (and even PR firms lol) in the Amber Heard trial. It’s not simply hating women, it’s looking to put them back in their place when the men around them think they have overreached and want retribution. I think that’s how Steve Sarowitz saw it, anyway.

I know Baldoni supporters see this story as a real case where a woman has overreached and is trying to weapon feminism to gain power for herself. I get that, that’s fine, you’re entitled, etc. I just think it’s interesting how all my audiobooks and this story are colliding haha, and also saying I think the world we live in is already set up to take real cases where men’s hurt feelings from their dominance being challenged cause men and society to kick women back down the ladder into their perceived rightful place in the heirarchy. I think this is why this and the amber heard case get so much media traction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PO obsessed atty. Going through Livelys amended complaint to look at the timeline, this Exhibit D (the 8/2/25 “scenario planning” doc that Nathan circulated to Baldoni before the premiere) is really pretty awful imho. It discusses various options for clear manipulation of people and public opinion - I mean, I guess that’s what PR reps do. They talk about dredging up old beefs Lively had with people (like is happening now ha), how problems on set were all due to Lively (again from my perspective, not true), etc.

It ends with this bullet point: “As part of this [effort to seed doubt about Lively messaging], our team can also explore planting stories about the weaponization of feminism and how people in BL’s circle like Taylor Swift, have been accused of utilizing these tactics to ‘bully’ into getting what they want.”

Wow, they were going to go after Swift full tilt if Swift poked her head out. They were going to attack Swift’s feminist credentials, in basically the same way outlets and social media that are now going after Lively. Are you weaponizing feminism, ladies? Make sure you do your little jobs and don’t make a fuss for the men in your lives, even if they’re harassing you.

I’m audio booking another book now that discusses Kate Mann’s book “Down Girl” that discusses the role of retribution in sexism and misogyny. Mann notes that misogyny had been understood as a kind of synonym for sexism, but is actually quite different.

Sexism is the hierarchical system that puts men at the top, where men (if they are white, CIS, hetero etc) are then subject to fewer societal and moral impediments to success.

Misogyny is different — it’s not some naive “hating women because they are women” feeling. It’s actually a moralistic tool of social control and punishment that reaches out to out us back in our place when we reach outside our roles in the sexist heirarchy. Misogyny is the punishment arm of sexism, and it comes into play most as retribution for perceived overreach.

I think that’s why this story is getting picked up in conservative circles, and that’s also why there were similar themes (and even PR firms lol) in the Amber Heard trial. It’s not simply hating women, it’s looking to put them back in their place when the men around them think they have overreached and want retribution. I think that’s how Steve Sarowitz saw it, anyway.

I know Baldoni supporters see this story as a real case where a woman has overreached and is trying to weapon feminism to gain power for herself. I get that, that’s fine, you’re entitled, etc. I just think it’s interesting how all my audiobooks and this story are colliding haha, and also saying I think the world we live in is already set up to take real cases where men’s hurt feelings from their dominance being challenged cause men and society to kick women back down the ladder into their perceived rightful place in the heirarchy. I think this is why this and the amber heard case get so much media traction.

I don’t doubt this happens, I just think we can’t railroad people for our own political agendas. I think there are some who don’t care if Baldoni is ruined as long as the Me Too movement remains in tact. I think these people feel like he’s a sacrifice they’re willing to make for the greater good. I just personally don’t think that’s ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh. I had pretty much assumed that Jones showing Leslie Sloane those texts likely violated the confidentiality clause in her contract with Wayfarer before, but now reading the clause itself, I could see some ways to lawyer herself out of it or minimize exposure.

A lot depends on exactly what Jones sent to Sloane. I doubt she showed her all the texts but I could be wrong.

If she just sent her texts between Nathan and Abel where they don't actually disclose anything that Baldoni or anyone at Wayfarer told them, she might be able to wiggle out of this.

I'd have to look at the texts to see if there are any that could potentially slip through a crack in that clause. Maybe not, but that clause is more narrow than I expected.

You’re thinking too hard. It doesn’t say confidentiality only pertains to information wayfarer told them. It references excluding information independently developed by Joneswork without reliance on information disclosed by clients (for example, this would include things like generic plans and campaigns that aren’t tailored to the client, like a pitch). Everything Abel was working on with Nathan was very specific to Wayfarer and their PR crisis during the premiere and was based on a lot of background information that had been given to them by Wayfarer. It was confidential work product that honestly belonged to the client (wayfarer) not to Jones and should never have been shared.

So you don’t think all the Abel/Nathan texts about hey, you know what we can do (just don’t put it in writing) we can bury her, hey look it’s working! Hey Justin is worried we are using bots but I told him the work we’re doing is much more targeted and specific — you don’t think that should have been shared ever or released to the public?

That stuff has a stank on it. I am happy for that to be discussed and maybe something good can come of it. I can understand you like Baldoni and this doesn’t make him look good. But I am glad that material was released.

I agree -- I'm glad this stuff came out if only to better educate the public (me) on how PR works. I honestly didn't realize how deep it went.

I just saw something that has been circulating regarding a PR attack on Meghan Markle and it made me think of this -- I only dip my toe in the online conversation about Meghan but am always shocked at the level of vitriol against her in those conversations. Not because I think she's so great (I think she's somewhere between annoying and innocuous) but because I don't get why people are so mad at her. Well... maybe they aren't. Maybe it's all an organized campaign. That actually makes more sense.

I dont' actually care if Stephanie Jones violated her confidentiality agreement with Wayfarer. I think revealing this stuff about PR is like a public service. I know Jones didn't think of it that way (she's part of the problem, she just thought she was getting back at a rival) but I think of it that way because now I can be more skeptical of ALL of this stuff, whether it's Abel and Nathan putting it out there, or Jones, or Sloane, or any of them. I'm a much more skeptical person at this point and that's a good thing.

I’m much more skeptical of mainstream media now than anything. If it weren’t for content creators, JB would be in trouble b/c the mainstream media has not covered this story in a balanced way. I think that’s part of the reason people are so interested in this case.

Someone on one of the podcasts also mentioned that WME dropped JB but not Diddy, which if true shows they don’t actually care about the allegations and just dropped JB b/c Ryan wanted them to. The power dynamics here are fascinating, which makes it all the more laughable that Blake is trying so hard to paint Baldoni as her powerful boss and herself as the vulnerable victim when nothing could be further from the truth.

Totally agree. So many content creators doing deep dives, where is mainstream media just gives the quick two minute version. And don’t get me started on the New York Times, which lost all credibility with this story. I don’t know if Megan Twoey was manipulated or bought or what. But I don’t think survivors will continue to go to her with their story.

There’s also a new piece from vanity fair. It’s not as aggressive as the NYT, LAT and glamour articles but it’s pro BL and basically says conservative media is trying to paint BL as Amber Heard. So we have the NYT’s hit piece, the LAT’s somewhat softer hit piece accusing JB of toxic positivity, the glamour piece attacking moms for not supporting “one of their own” and now the Vanity Fair piece. As a liberal, I’m annoyed the mainstream media is not holding BL accountable and is instead scapegoating everyone they can. It’s not moms who’s undermining the me too movement, it’s BL for bringing these frivolous accusations to advance her own agenda.

I see there is a Vanity Fair article from yesterday called “Why Conservative Media Lives Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni’s Showdown” which I can’t read (paywall) — I would have thought with that headline it was pointing out some of the obvious misogyny problems inherent in conservative media taking up Baldoni’s position in this circus that Taylor Lorentz was pointing out three weeks ago, but PP above seems to be saying it’s sympathetic to Baldoni. Okay.

For my part (PP PO lawyer so you know where this is going) I am inherently distrustful of any position Candace Owens, Megyn Kelly, or Joe Rogan are taking and I don’t think they’re taking the culture anywhere good. I just finished the audiobook expose about Facebook (Careless People) and it was eye opening re how social media users are so easily manipulated into changing their minds because the mass aggregation of data allows companies like Facebook to target extremely effective advertising/articles at them I. Ways they know and have studied will be most effective. Getting the news through social media is not going to free us. It just gets us believing in different, opposing realities.

No, it’s sympathetic to BL similar to the Taylor Lorentz piece as you assumed (I think you misread). I’m also generally skeptical of conservative media but I’m annoyed that mainstream media doesn’t see the role they’re playing in driving people into the arms of conservative media.

Np. There is nothing on planet earth that could drive me into the arms of the conservative media. You don't have many strong convictions if you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh. I had pretty much assumed that Jones showing Leslie Sloane those texts likely violated the confidentiality clause in her contract with Wayfarer before, but now reading the clause itself, I could see some ways to lawyer herself out of it or minimize exposure.

A lot depends on exactly what Jones sent to Sloane. I doubt she showed her all the texts but I could be wrong.

If she just sent her texts between Nathan and Abel where they don't actually disclose anything that Baldoni or anyone at Wayfarer told them, she might be able to wiggle out of this.

I'd have to look at the texts to see if there are any that could potentially slip through a crack in that clause. Maybe not, but that clause is more narrow than I expected.

You’re thinking too hard. It doesn’t say confidentiality only pertains to information wayfarer told them. It references excluding information independently developed by Joneswork without reliance on information disclosed by clients (for example, this would include things like generic plans and campaigns that aren’t tailored to the client, like a pitch). Everything Abel was working on with Nathan was very specific to Wayfarer and their PR crisis during the premiere and was based on a lot of background information that had been given to them by Wayfarer. It was confidential work product that honestly belonged to the client (wayfarer) not to Jones and should never have been shared.

So you don’t think all the Abel/Nathan texts about hey, you know what we can do (just don’t put it in writing) we can bury her, hey look it’s working! Hey Justin is worried we are using bots but I told him the work we’re doing is much more targeted and specific — you don’t think that should have been shared ever or released to the public?

That stuff has a stank on it. I am happy for that to be discussed and maybe something good can come of it. I can understand you like Baldoni and this doesn’t make him look good. But I am glad that material was released.

I agree -- I'm glad this stuff came out if only to better educate the public (me) on how PR works. I honestly didn't realize how deep it went.

I just saw something that has been circulating regarding a PR attack on Meghan Markle and it made me think of this -- I only dip my toe in the online conversation about Meghan but am always shocked at the level of vitriol against her in those conversations. Not because I think she's so great (I think she's somewhere between annoying and innocuous) but because I don't get why people are so mad at her. Well... maybe they aren't. Maybe it's all an organized campaign. That actually makes more sense.

I dont' actually care if Stephanie Jones violated her confidentiality agreement with Wayfarer. I think revealing this stuff about PR is like a public service. I know Jones didn't think of it that way (she's part of the problem, she just thought she was getting back at a rival) but I think of it that way because now I can be more skeptical of ALL of this stuff, whether it's Abel and Nathan putting it out there, or Jones, or Sloane, or any of them. I'm a much more skeptical person at this point and that's a good thing.

I’m much more skeptical of mainstream media now than anything. If it weren’t for content creators, JB would be in trouble b/c the mainstream media has not covered this story in a balanced way. I think that’s part of the reason people are so interested in this case.

Someone on one of the podcasts also mentioned that WME dropped JB but not Diddy, which if true shows they don’t actually care about the allegations and just dropped JB b/c Ryan wanted them to. The power dynamics here are fascinating, which makes it all the more laughable that Blake is trying so hard to paint Baldoni as her powerful boss and herself as the vulnerable victim when nothing could be further from the truth.

Totally agree. So many content creators doing deep dives, where is mainstream media just gives the quick two minute version. And don’t get me started on the New York Times, which lost all credibility with this story. I don’t know if Megan Twoey was manipulated or bought or what. But I don’t think survivors will continue to go to her with their story.

There’s also a new piece from vanity fair. It’s not as aggressive as the NYT, LAT and glamour articles but it’s pro BL and basically says conservative media is trying to paint BL as Amber Heard. So we have the NYT’s hit piece, the LAT’s somewhat softer hit piece accusing JB of toxic positivity, the glamour piece attacking moms for not supporting “one of their own” and now the Vanity Fair piece. As a liberal, I’m annoyed the mainstream media is not holding BL accountable and is instead scapegoating everyone they can. It’s not moms who’s undermining the me too movement, it’s BL for bringing these frivolous accusations to advance her own agenda.

I see there is a Vanity Fair article from yesterday called “Why Conservative Media Lives Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni’s Showdown” which I can’t read (paywall) — I would have thought with that headline it was pointing out some of the obvious misogyny problems inherent in conservative media taking up Baldoni’s position in this circus that Taylor Lorentz was pointing out three weeks ago, but PP above seems to be saying it’s sympathetic to Baldoni. Okay.

For my part (PP PO lawyer so you know where this is going) I am inherently distrustful of any position Candace Owens, Megyn Kelly, or Joe Rogan are taking and I don’t think they’re taking the culture anywhere good. I just finished the audiobook expose about Facebook (Careless People) and it was eye opening re how social media users are so easily manipulated into changing their minds because the mass aggregation of data allows companies like Facebook to target extremely effective advertising/articles at them I. Ways they know and have studied will be most effective. Getting the news through social media is not going to free us. It just gets us believing in different, opposing realities.

No, it’s sympathetic to BL similar to the Taylor Lorentz piece as you assumed (I think you misread). I’m also generally skeptical of conservative media but I’m annoyed that mainstream media doesn’t see the role they’re playing in driving people into the arms of conservative media.

Np. There is nothing on planet earth that could drive me into the arms of the conservative media. You don't have many strong convictions if you are.

That kind of thinking is what got us Trump. Too many liberals would rather shame others liberals than do some self reflection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone give me a quick summary of the stephanie Jones Jen Abel side of things? Who worked for who? And someone left and then shared texts with lively?

No flames please.

Stephanie Jones is a well known publicist who (had) big name clients like Tom & Gizelle, Besos & Sanchez, and the Rock. She’s based in NYC and is married to a WME exec. She opened an LA office and hired staff there to work more closely with her LA clients.

Jen Abel was hired to work in her LA office. Jones handled the big name clients like Tom Brady directly and delegated the less prominent clients like Wayfarer to Abel and others. So Abel was Wayfarer’s rep.

Abel submitted her resignation in July and gave a very generous 6 weeks notice. She continued working on the Wayfarer account during that time but Jones started getting more involved in hopes of ensuring the client wouldn’t walk with Abel. Wayfarer hadn’t really worked with Jones much, and as they were going through a crisis surrounding JB being iced out of the premiere, told Jones to please back off. They told her politely at first and then more sternly, as they found her involvement sloppy. During this timeframe, Jones was having a lot of PR problems of her own and was losing clients (I think she lost the Rock around that time), so was paranoid about losing clients.

Two days before the end of Abel’s 6 weeks notice, she confronted Abel with people Abel believed to be Jones’ chief of staff (the only person Abel recognized), a “lawyer”, a security guard, and a forensic specialist. They confiscated Abel’s laptop and searched it on the spot for confidential documents but found none. Then they took her phone. The phone is where the big dispute comes from. It was a company device but Abel’s personal number she had used since HS. She didn’t have a separate work and company phone and instead used the one phone for everything. Jones’ chief of staff told Abel to go down to the Verizon store and they would release the number back to her, as they were just confiscating the device. She went directly to the Verizon store and waited 4 hrs but they reneged on their promise. That same day, BL’s publicist called Melissa Nathan, the person Abel had brought on to do crisis PR for Wayfarer, and said I’ve seen your text messages and you will be sued.

Jones sued Wayfarer for breach of contract and Abel for I’m not sure but maybe “stealing clients?” Now Abel is suing for a whole bunch of things: she wants to void the contact for including illegal clauses like a noncompete, which CA doesn’t recognize, and apparently the court can issue punitive damages to Jones for issuing an illegal contract. She’s also suing for false imprisonment and I believe violation to her reasonable expectation of privacy. Wayfarer is suing for breach of confidentiality in their contract and probably some other things.

There’s been a big debate over whether or not anyone ever got a subpoena to share the text messages with BL, but it doesn’t look like there was one. That’s to be determined during discovery but the Wayfarer parties say there wasn’t one.

Thank you!!! A few follow up questions if you don’t mind…

Why was Abel leaving? Was she trying to take Wayfarer? Or was Jones just being paranoid?

And I don’t see the connection with Nathan. Why did Abel hire her and not Jones if Jones owned the agency? And how did Blake’s publicist get involved and what text messages could get Nathan sued?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Footnote 10 in Lively’s amended complaint makes clear that Lively obtained the PR texts from Jonesworks through a civil subpoena to Jonesworks. Lively produced the texts etc in the manner in which they were produced to her through that subpoena, with limited redactions of names and numbers for privacy reasons. The footnote goes on to note that Lively at all times thought Jonesworks had lawfully maintained and produced those documents.

Lively’s amended complaint says Lively got the docs from Jonesworks that it published in its CA complaint through its own lawful, civil subpoena (leaving open the possibility that Sloane may have seen the texts before the texts were used in the complaint, I think). I don’t think anyone is saying jones got the docs via a subpoena, just through legal means. (Sorry if I have misunderstood what folks are disputing here.)

+1, this is also my understanding, I don't understand the confusion to be honest. There's no way there was not a subpoena because Lively has stated, multiple times via multiple court documents, that there was one. In CA it's actually not that hard to get a subpoena for records related to potential litigation -- it's a subpoena to preserve or retain records (to prevent their destruction) and because they almost certainly had Jonesworks sign off on the subpoena, it would not be that hard to get a judge to grant it.

Jones likely showed Sloane some of the texts before any subpoena was filed, which yeah probably violated the confidentiality clause with Wayfarer. That's Jones problem. But once Sloane knew the texts existed, she could then probably provide an affidavit for Lively's subpoena describing the texts she'd seen and what they said, which would make it fairly easy for Lively to argue that she needed access to the texts so she could find out if she had standing to sue.

None of this seems that irregular to me, except Jones burning her own client, but they were also leaving her to join Abel so even that doesn't really surprise me. From Lively's perspective, this is all on the up and up. Jones will have to battle out the confidentiality issue herself.

I think this fits the theory that there was no subpoena initially but that BL’s attorneys got one after the fact to cure the original sin. I think that’s plausible and as we’ve all said probably doesn’t impact the case against BL, but the lack of subpoena for the initial disclosure impacts the case against Jones.

Right but since it doesn't impact Lively's case, who cares? Really. Are people really invested in the contract case between Wayfarer and Jones? That's so boring.

The point is that Lively obtained the texts legally, they are authentic texts. The end. I don't get why people are focused on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the only open issue is, if there was a subpoena and I tend to believe there was, what open case was it attached to? The first case I know of is the Lively CRD complaint, but that relies on the texts, so it didn't predate the subpoena.

And also why wasn’t anyone on notice of the subpoena, but i guess the thinking there is Jonesworks as the owner of the phone was given notice and didn't object. I posted her contract with Wayfarer a few pages ago and it said she could turn things over by court order and I don't believe it required her to give Wayfarer notice although I imagine she would have had they been on better terms (and being married to the WME guy she sides with Lively and Reynolds). And then another PP noted as to Abel this may be considered work product and not employment records.

I've already explained this a couple times but here it is again:

You can subpoena records in CA without an open case. It's called a Petition to Perpetuate Testimony and Preserve Evidence. You can read how it works here: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/code-of-civil-procedure/ccp-sect-2035-030/#:~:text=(a)%20One%20who%20desires%20to,State%20of%20California%2C%20in%20the

Since Lively anticipated filing a CRD against Abel and Nathan, her request for these records would have fallen within this provision. Also, as I've previously stated, since the phone and texts belonged to Jonesworks, if Jones agreed to the subpoena, this would have been a pretty effortless ask -- there's no reason for a judge to deny a subpoena for documents where the providing party doesn't object and the requestor can articulate a need for the documents related to anticipated litigation.