Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I can tell you as someone who knows NYTs reporters and how their newsroom operates that there is absolutely no way that they will find actual malice here.

But sure, let's wait for discovery. And then I'll come back here and say "I told you so."

[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.

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.

The defamation defense bar does not refer to themselves as ‘1A’ attorneys. Thats my point. It is a fairly small world, which you clearly do not know well, yet you keep chiming in like you’re an expert.

And I never said Fox and the NYT are the same, rather that discovery often gets messy and risky for media defendants because they tend to WRITE everything down.

[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:

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.

I can tell you as someone who knows NYTs reporters and how their newsroom operates that there is absolutely no way that they will find actual malice here.

But sure, let's wait for discovery. And then I'll come back here and say "I told you so."

+1. The Sarah Palin case is probably the closest that a case will get - based on a reflexive animus towards Palin and careless editing.

But to pretend it is ANYWHERE similar to Dominion (either Baldoni or Palin) is absurd. In Dominion FOX’s fact-checking department literally sent memos saying the Dominion story was false and were overruled by execs who wanted market share.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Like. Like? Like lady did I say it was like relevant to “uncomfortable” victimy delicate demure Blake Lively? Did I? I did not.

Quit trying to put words in my mouth. I was not addressing your limited take on her legal arguments. She asserts reputational damages, not sexual harassment- and her reputation was in the bottom of a Porta Potty in my particular community.

[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:

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.

I can tell you as someone who knows NYTs reporters and how their newsroom operates that there is absolutely no way that they will find actual malice here.

But sure, let's wait for discovery. And then I'll come back here and say "I told you so."

Sure, bet is on. I happen to know NYT reporters too, and no one is saying the NYT are evil and out to publish lies, but you don’t seem to appreciate that wont necessarily be the standard, especially to a jury who won’t necessarily hold precise views of legal standards and who right now tend to have an anti media bias.

[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.

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.

The defamation defense bar does not refer to themselves as ‘1A’ attorneys. Thats my point. It is a fairly small world, which you clearly do not know well, yet you keep chiming in like you’re an expert.

And I never said Fox and the NYT are the same, rather that discovery often gets messy and risky for media defendants because they tend to WRITE everything down.

true, Floyd Abrams never discussed the First Amendment 🤡

anyway I never said I was a defamation defense attorney? I don’t believe you are either. If you are I invite you to write a long post showing how Baldoni will show the same types of facts as alleged in the Dominion cases. “maybe he will dig up a red flag that the jury maybe will construe against the NYT” is not really persuasive.

[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:

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.

I can tell you as someone who knows NYTs reporters and how their newsroom operates that there is absolutely no way that they will find actual malice here.

But sure, let's wait for discovery. And then I'll come back here and say "I told you so."

Sure, bet is on. I happen to know NYT reporters too, and no one is saying the NYT are evil and out to publish lies, but you don’t seem to appreciate that wont necessarily be the standard, especially to a jury who won’t necessarily hold precise views of legal standards and who right now tend to have an anti media bias.

It’s not getting to a jury bozo.

[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:

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.

I can tell you as someone who knows NYTs reporters and how their newsroom operates that there is absolutely no way that they will find actual malice here.

But sure, let's wait for discovery. And then I'll come back here and say "I told you so."

+1. The Sarah Palin case is probably the closest that a case will get - based on a reflexive animus towards Palin and careless editing.

But to pretend it is ANYWHERE similar to Dominion (either Baldoni or Palin) is absurd. In Dominion FOX’s fact-checking department literally sent memos saying the Dominion story was false and were overruled by execs who wanted market share.

Sigh. I keep saying- discovery is my point, not that it was an outright lie that everyone knew. It doesn’t have to be a LIE. It only has to be reckless for baldoni and merely negligent for the others.

Palin is a good case. That was a total mistake on the part of an editor and it was an OP ED, and the clearly very pro NYT judge did everything to shut that case down, including allowing for bizarre early discovery. And yet it continues.. and the NYT is looking to settle (very rare).

[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:

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.

I can tell you as someone who knows NYTs reporters and how their newsroom operates that there is absolutely no way that they will find actual malice here.

But sure, let's wait for discovery. And then I'll come back here and say "I told you so."

Sure, bet is on. I happen to know NYT reporters too, and no one is saying the NYT are evil and out to publish lies, but you don’t seem to appreciate that wont necessarily be the standard, especially to a jury who won’t necessarily hold precise views of legal standards and who right now tend to have an anti media bias.

It’s not getting to a jury bozo.

Bet whatever that legal cable channel is that aired Depp trial in full is sure hoping it goes all the way to jury!

[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:

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.

The defamation defense bar does not refer to themselves as ‘1A’ attorneys. Thats my point. It is a fairly small world, which you clearly do not know well, yet you keep chiming in like you’re an expert.

And I never said Fox and the NYT are the same, rather that discovery often gets messy and risky for media defendants because they tend to WRITE everything down.

true, Floyd Abrams never discussed the First Amendment 🤡

anyway I never said I was a defamation defense attorney? I don’t believe you are either. If you are I invite you to write a long post showing how Baldoni will show the same types of facts as alleged in the Dominion cases. “maybe he will dig up a red flag that the jury maybe will construe against the NYT” is not really persuasive.

Sigh. You’re hopeless in digging in when you don’t know, and then trying to twist my words. Floyd Abrams hasn’t been on the defense scene in any real way for years. I get that you took a law class and know his name. Besides, I was making fun of your short hand, 1A. It’s just not an acronym that’s used.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP, I think it's somewhat relevant in that there has to be some kind of standard in terms of what is reasonable to expect in terms of what would be generally uncomfortable and what would make Blake, specifically, uncomfortable. There are many examples where Blake freaks out to incredibly benign comments and escalates immediately in an unreasonable manner. Hypothetical example, makeup artist says, "nice pedicure! I love pink for summer." Blake has the type of personality to take this comment and warp it to, "OMG, what a sick person, commenting on my body. Who gave this disgusting foot fetishist the right?! I am appalled and insulted and uncomfortable!"

Sure, Blake has a right to feel that way and maybe she does, but I personally am not going to call for the makeup artist to be tarred and feathered because they made that comment and Blake has a pretty batshit read of it. Her crappy personality includes consistently having these type of takes with others, so I find her to be a very unreliable narrator in terms of what she deems uncomfortable with Baldoni.

[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:

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.

I can tell you as someone who knows NYTs reporters and how their newsroom operates that there is absolutely no way that they will find actual malice here.

But sure, let's wait for discovery. And then I'll come back here and say "I told you so."

+1. The Sarah Palin case is probably the closest that a case will get - based on a reflexive animus towards Palin and careless editing.

But to pretend it is ANYWHERE similar to Dominion (either Baldoni or Palin) is absurd. In Dominion FOX’s fact-checking department literally sent memos saying the Dominion story was false and were overruled by execs who wanted market share.

Sigh. I keep saying- discovery is my point, not that it was an outright lie that everyone knew. It doesn’t have to be a LIE. It only has to be reckless for baldoni and merely negligent for the others.

Palin is a good case. That was a total mistake on the part of an editor and it was an OP ED, and the clearly very pro NYT judge did everything to shut that case down, including allowing for bizarre early discovery. And yet it continues.. and the NYT is looking to settle (very rare).

Discovery is *not going to show* anything CLOSE to the Dominion v FOX case. or even the Palin case. That’s the point. This is run of the mill celebrity reporting. FWIW I think BL is wrong.

[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:

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.

The defamation defense bar does not refer to themselves as ‘1A’ attorneys. Thats my point. It is a fairly small world, which you clearly do not know well, yet you keep chiming in like you’re an expert.

And I never said Fox and the NYT are the same, rather that discovery often gets messy and risky for media defendants because they tend to WRITE everything down.

true, Floyd Abrams never discussed the First Amendment 🤡

anyway I never said I was a defamation defense attorney? I don’t believe you are either. If you are I invite you to write a long post showing how Baldoni will show the same types of facts as alleged in the Dominion cases. “maybe he will dig up a red flag that the jury maybe will construe against the NYT” is not really persuasive.

Sigh. You’re hopeless in digging in when you don’t know, and then trying to twist my words. Floyd Abrams hasn’t been on the defense scene in any real way for years. I get that you took a law class and know his name. Besides, I was making fun of your short hand, 1A. It’s just not an acronym that’s used.

true, only a member of the very small “defense scene” can competently analyze the case; and using an acronym you dislike shows that my opinion is worthless. Mmm hmm.

still waiting for your actual analysis of the dominion v Baldoni complaints. I don’t think Baldoni has even alleged enough to get to discovery.

[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:

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.

I can tell you as someone who knows NYTs reporters and how their newsroom operates that there is absolutely no way that they will find actual malice here.

But sure, let's wait for discovery. And then I'll come back here and say "I told you so."

Sure, bet is on. I happen to know NYT reporters too, and no one is saying the NYT are evil and out to publish lies, but you don’t seem to appreciate that wont necessarily be the standard, especially to a jury who won’t necessarily hold precise views of legal standards and who right now tend to have an anti media bias.

It’s not getting to a jury bozo.

We will see. As I’ve said and actually analyzed, is that I think it has a decent shot IF Baldoni wants it to

And yeah, the Depp heard case is another that shows how public figure cases can get to juries despite truth as a defense and the actual malice standard.

Heard became the face of domestic violence after …

She didn’t even name Depp or say ‘I was beaten by a man’

Such a watered down and clearly vetted statement, and yet it went to a jury

[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:

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.

I can tell you as someone who knows NYTs reporters and how their newsroom operates that there is absolutely no way that they will find actual malice here.

But sure, let's wait for discovery. And then I'll come back here and say "I told you so."

+1. The Sarah Palin case is probably the closest that a case will get - based on a reflexive animus towards Palin and careless editing.

But to pretend it is ANYWHERE similar to Dominion (either Baldoni or Palin) is absurd. In Dominion FOX’s fact-checking department literally sent memos saying the Dominion story was false and were overruled by execs who wanted market share.

Sigh. I keep saying- discovery is my point, not that it was an outright lie that everyone knew. It doesn’t have to be a LIE. It only has to be reckless for baldoni and merely negligent for the others.

Palin is a good case. That was a total mistake on the part of an editor and it was an OP ED, and the clearly very pro NYT judge did everything to shut that case down, including allowing for bizarre early discovery. And yet it continues.. and the NYT is looking to settle (very rare).

Discovery is *not going to show* anything CLOSE to the Dominion v FOX case. or even the Palin case. That’s the point. This is run of the mill celebrity reporting. FWIW I think BL is wrong.

I think you don’t know the Palin case if you are saying this right now. The discovery showed so little in Palin. It was a rushed OP ED piece that came together in less than a day after a shooting. This Baldoni story was likely in the works for awhile. Plenty of time for them to go to the other side and get more support, which they did not appear to do.

The trial judge in Palin did everything to lean it to the times, yet it is still going.

And you keep jumping to AM right now. Mostly premature. This is about fair report right now.