Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1, I am surprised by the posts on here defending Justin like he's some wronged innocent. He sounds like an opportunist who found a nice niche for himself ("I'm a *sensitive* guy who really gets it") and capitalized on it, but it all comes off as very disingenuous to me. Also his book, podcast, and this movie sound like garbage so I can't help but roll my eyes about the comments talking earnestly about how he just want to address toxic masculinity or tell stories of abuse. GMAFB.

But I've also never liked Lively and am totally unsurprised that she's a diva on set and impossible to work with, or that she goes running to her husband to fix things for her when she doesn't get her way. I have also encountered dysfunctional couples like this twice in real life, both in semi-professional contexts where the women would pout and play the victim and then their husbands would come down hard on people but justify it as "protecting" their wives. It's equally annoying as Justin's schtick, and probably ultimately more consequential.

Ugh. I have zero interest in ever paying money to see anything any of these people ever make again. There are lots of talented artists out there who aren't like this.

I don't care for his male feminist schtick and his Man Enough book sounds boring. But I do believe he was railroaded by two powerful people and that he has very credible rebuttals for all of Blake's sexual harassment claims. I think you're conflating the comments here with a Justin Baldoni subreddit or something, because I haven't seen anything here really indicating we're legitimate fans of his. It's really more anti-Lively here than pro-Justin.

I'm the PP and I've only read about that s conflict here. There have definitely been posts on here that are very "pro-Justin" and painting him as some wonderful person. I don't even get the posts painting him as a victim, tbh. I don't think Lively is a victim either. I think they are both narcissistic, grating people who made a crappy movie together and got embroiled in a pissing match. I think Lively comes off worse because of Reynolds and because she had more leverage. But I don't view either as a victim.

[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:

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.

The NYTimes almost immediately retracted the Palin OP-ED. Totally totally different set of facts.

Yeah, you’re arguing my point although you don’t seem to realize it…. the fact they retracted actually shows there was no malice and that it was one of those minor journalistic mistakes that the law should protect. Palin was a very public figure, yet the case moved forward even though it was clearly a fairly minor mistake in a loose OPINION piece (eg, no one should take it as fact). This present case is actually much worse on the facts for the Times in a way, other than fair report, which I’ve explained may not fully protect them.

no, the retraction meant it was a MAJOR mistake. you think stating that Palin’s ad incited political violence was “minor”? come on.

It was in an op Ed and they said her PAC incited violence, in a theoretical not literal way obviously. It was opinion, which is supposed to be especially protected speech. It wasn’t all that ‘major’ and they retracted right away which shows good faith and that it was a mistake. Which you keep saying means almost no case against a public figure can move forward. But yet it did here, despite the judge ruling early on that issue (and then being reversed).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a very confusingly worded post about a podcast episode (really?) that provides no links and no useful discussion, after the website thread was just closed down LESS THAN 24 HOURS AGO after a person who trolled around with anti-Lively posts said they regret nothing for trolling and insulting the anti-Baldoni side and would do it again.

LESS THAN 24 HOURS PEOPLE. I PROPOSE A LONGER BREAK FROM LIVELY/BALDONI THREADS so that people can remember what their normal lives are like. At least one week. A podcast episode or this email release is not a true development. Maybe people can't even deal with this subject reasonably at all. I don't understand why someone would feel the need to post this not-really-a-development thread after both the thread itself and the thread asking for closure of the thread were locked because people could not control themselves and act like human beings?

Omg get a grip. A number of us find this interesting from a legal perspective. I’d personally like to know more about how a “false light” claim is somehow easier to show than defamation.

These threads are the most interesting things that have been on DCUM in a while, due to the very high number of lawyers and journalists in this region who can weigh in on the actual case, and on the schadenfreude of seeing a mean girl face consequences.

I didnt care about Blake Lively or Ryan Reynolds or Justin Baldoni at all until like a week ago, and now this is my crack. Reddit is pretty good for a fix, but let's keep it rolling here.

Can you let me know what Reddit subs you’re reading on this? This is my crack too!

DP. blakelivelysnark is one. Justinbaldoni is another. The former definitely has an obvious point of view. The latter claims to just be about all things Justin baldoni related, but it seems to skew friendly to him. Regardless, those subs stay up to date on the latest tea/news/etc. Other subs that are more general interest pop culture but sometimes have things about this are fauxmoi and popculturechat. Also tons of YouTubers. Zack peter and Dave Neal are a couple.

Hilarious that people were like, there’s a Blake lively schill here when you guys admit you’re only looking at the Baldoni subreddit and Blake snark. Check your biases. You’re mad at whatever popular girl was mean to you or wouldn’t sleep you with in high school and want her to be taken down by proxy as Blake.

Aren’t you tired having to lie to yourselves about why you’re doing all this? It’s really sad how little people have in their lives that this is what they’re most excited about this week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1, I am surprised by the posts on here defending Justin like he's some wronged innocent. He sounds like an opportunist who found a nice niche for himself ("I'm a *sensitive* guy who really gets it") and capitalized on it, but it all comes off as very disingenuous to me. Also his book, podcast, and this movie sound like garbage so I can't help but roll my eyes about the comments talking earnestly about how he just want to address toxic masculinity or tell stories of abuse. GMAFB.

But I've also never liked Lively and am totally unsurprised that she's a diva on set and impossible to work with, or that she goes running to her husband to fix things for her when she doesn't get her way. I have also encountered dysfunctional couples like this twice in real life, both in semi-professional contexts where the women would pout and play the victim and then their husbands would come down hard on people but justify it as "protecting" their wives. It's equally annoying as Justin's schtick, and probably ultimately more consequential.

Ugh. I have zero interest in ever paying money to see anything any of these people ever make again. There are lots of talented artists out there who aren't like this.

I don't care for his male feminist schtick and his Man Enough book sounds boring. But I do believe he was railroaded by two powerful people and that he has very credible rebuttals for all of Blake's sexual harassment claims. I think you're conflating the comments here with a Justin Baldoni subreddit or something, because I haven't seen anything here really indicating we're legitimate fans of his. It's really more anti-Lively here than pro-Justin.

There were one or two posters making him out to be some sort of virtuous icon of goodness, but on the whole I don’t think people have made him out to be a hero. Here’s the thing: Nobody likes a bully, and that’s what BL and RR are looking like here. (That apology letter they wrote for him? WTF. Who does that? That attempt-at-extortion letter alone is more egregious than every one of her grasping-at-straws SH claims.)

Regardless of a victim’s “likability” people are going to want to take the bully down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1, I am surprised by the posts on here defending Justin like he's some wronged innocent. He sounds like an opportunist who found a nice niche for himself ("I'm a *sensitive* guy who really gets it") and capitalized on it, but it all comes off as very disingenuous to me. Also his book, podcast, and this movie sound like garbage so I can't help but roll my eyes about the comments talking earnestly about how he just want to address toxic masculinity or tell stories of abuse. GMAFB.

But I've also never liked Lively and am totally unsurprised that she's a diva on set and impossible to work with, or that she goes running to her husband to fix things for her when she doesn't get her way. I have also encountered dysfunctional couples like this twice in real life, both in semi-professional contexts where the women would pout and play the victim and then their husbands would come down hard on people but justify it as "protecting" their wives. It's equally annoying as Justin's schtick, and probably ultimately more consequential.

Ugh. I have zero interest in ever paying money to see anything any of these people ever make again. There are lots of talented artists out there who aren't like this.

I don't care for his male feminist schtick and his Man Enough book sounds boring. But I do believe he was railroaded by two powerful people and that he has very credible rebuttals for all of Blake's sexual harassment claims. I think you're conflating the comments here with a Justin Baldoni subreddit or something, because I haven't seen anything here really indicating we're legitimate fans of his. It's really more anti-Lively here than pro-Justin.

I'm the PP and I've only read about that s conflict here. There have definitely been posts on here that are very "pro-Justin" and painting him as some wonderful person. I don't even get the posts painting him as a victim, tbh. I don't think Lively is a victim either. I think they are both narcissistic, grating people who made a crappy movie together and got embroiled in a pissing match. I think Lively comes off worse because of Reynolds and because she had more leverage. But I don't view either as a victim.

I think he’s a fake and unlikable person. But for Blake to try and destroy him is what I think enrages a lot of people who see the power imbalance and also see what kind of person she is through all the interviews she’s done where she has appeared condescending (you have a cute bump) and clueless (wear your florals) and cruel (pointing out thaf Leighton was born in a cage). This does not mean that powerful women who happen to be dumb and unkind cannot be victims of sexual harassment—they just have to have strong evidence.

I will say though, if Jennifer Lawrence said she was sexually harassed I would believe her without evidence because I think she has character and integrity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a very confusingly worded post about a podcast episode (really?) that provides no links and no useful discussion, after the website thread was just closed down LESS THAN 24 HOURS AGO after a person who trolled around with anti-Lively posts said they regret nothing for trolling and insulting the anti-Baldoni side and would do it again.

LESS THAN 24 HOURS PEOPLE. I PROPOSE A LONGER BREAK FROM LIVELY/BALDONI THREADS so that people can remember what their normal lives are like. At least one week. A podcast episode or this email release is not a true development. Maybe people can't even deal with this subject reasonably at all. I don't understand why someone would feel the need to post this not-really-a-development thread after both the thread itself and the thread asking for closure of the thread were locked because people could not control themselves and act like human beings?

Omg get a grip. A number of us find this interesting from a legal perspective. I’d personally like to know more about how a “false light” claim is somehow easier to show than defamation.

These threads are the most interesting things that have been on DCUM in a while, due to the very high number of lawyers and journalists in this region who can weigh in on the actual case, and on the schadenfreude of seeing a mean girl face consequences.

I didnt care about Blake Lively or Ryan Reynolds or Justin Baldoni at all until like a week ago, and now this is my crack. Reddit is pretty good for a fix, but let's keep it rolling here.

Can you let me know what Reddit subs you’re reading on this? This is my crack too!

DP. blakelivelysnark is one. Justinbaldoni is another. The former definitely has an obvious point of view. The latter claims to just be about all things Justin baldoni related, but it seems to skew friendly to him. Regardless, those subs stay up to date on the latest tea/news/etc. Other subs that are more general interest pop culture but sometimes have things about this are fauxmoi and popculturechat. Also tons of YouTubers. Zack peter and Dave Neal are a couple.

Hilarious that people were like, there’s a Blake lively schill here when you guys admit you’re only looking at the Baldoni subreddit and Blake snark. Check your biases. You’re mad at whatever popular girl was mean to you or wouldn’t sleep you with in high school and want her to be taken down by proxy as Blake.

Aren’t you tired having to lie to yourselves about why you’re doing all this? It’s really sad how little people have in their lives that this is what they’re most excited about this week.

Oh good. You’re back.

[Anonymous]

Question about Blake's complaint: Are these filings private? Or would it have become available to the public eventually, with or without the Times' involvement?

[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:

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.

The NYTimes almost immediately retracted the Palin OP-ED. Totally totally different set of facts.

Yeah, you’re arguing my point although you don’t seem to realize it…. the fact they retracted actually shows there was no malice and that it was one of those minor journalistic mistakes that the law should protect. Palin was a very public figure, yet the case moved forward even though it was clearly a fairly minor mistake in a loose OPINION piece (eg, no one should take it as fact). This present case is actually much worse on the facts for the Times in a way, other than fair report, which I’ve explained may not fully protect them.

no, the retraction meant it was a MAJOR mistake. you think stating that Palin’s ad incited political violence was “minor”? come on.

It was in an op Ed and they said her PAC incited violence, in a theoretical not literal way obviously. It was opinion, which is supposed to be especially protected speech. It wasn’t all that ‘major’ and they retracted right away which shows good faith and that it was a mistake. Which you keep saying means almost no case against a public figure can move forward. But yet it did here, despite the judge ruling early on that issue (and then being reversed).

It was indeed called an “opinion,” but as you (a member of the elite media defense bar) well know, calling something an “opinion” does not shield you from defamation liability. And it made very incindiary factual assertion that Palin’s attack ad directly incited the gifford’s shooting. From the 2nd Circuit:

“ The editorial argued that these two political shootings evidenced the "vicious" nature of American politics. Reflecting on the Loughner shooting and the SarahPAC crosshairs map, the editorial claimed that the "link to political incitement was clear," and noted that Palin’s political action committee had "circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs," suggesting that the congressmembers themselves had been pictured on the map. In the next paragraph, the editorial referenced the Hodgkinson shooting that had happened that day: "Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right."”

[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.

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.

Defense BAR. Not defense ‘scene’. And yes, your use of strange acronyms and reference to non practicing attorneys leads me to believe you don’t know this area of the law very well. Which is fine. I don’t know the SH side of things that well. The difference is that most people admit what they don’t know. You are amusing in that you act like you are an expert when you’re clearly not.

I think B will get discovery, but sure, let’s wait and see.

Sweetie you were the one who said “defense scene,” not me. And despite your claim to be a member of the elite corps of the defense BAR, you still have done zero to actually detail what in the Baldoni complaint parallels Dominion or even Palin, and what plausibly pleads all the necessary elements especially actual malice.

Meanwhile I have yet to see a single article covering this story that quotes any lawyer saying the claim is strong. Maybe you saw one?

This entire DCUM chain started because of a lawyer on a podcast saying the NYT had risk in this case…

People who know this area of the law well tend to love the NYT, and most aren’t going to run to bet against it. And it’s not like people other than legal nerds care about this issue that much in the first place. But we’ll see what legal analysis comes out as this progresses. I’d love to read it.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Judging by this article (did not have a chance to listen) it sounds fairly pointless and whiny: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14330807/listen-justin-baldoni-voicemail-blake-lively-apologizing-rooftop-scene-ends-us.html

Daily Mail is affiliated with Baldoni. Guessing he was the one who released this because he makes references to "fall[ing] short" and being a "flawed man" and he probably would rather have them out in their full context than have Lively leak selectively. That's my best guess. Doesn't seem like a big bombshell.

How is Daily Mail affiliated with Baldoni? That makes zero sense

They've broken stories for him before, including the dance scene footage. It's a friendly outline for him.

That's true. We also have to remember even if it's coming from a particular team it's spun to be in their favor.

Its the "source close to actor" articles that you should take with grain of salt. 9 out of 10 times even if it's coming from a PR agent, it's fake. This voicemail was given to DM by i am assuming Justin's team.

I think the way they conversed with each other was....odd but I don't sense any hostility at this moment. The truth is in the middle with these two.

I assume Justin team put out to say what a nice guy he sounds and maybe so if listen to voicemail cold, but imagine Blake’s team will ask public, if a woman has told her boss and HR that she is uncomfortable at work and hostile environment, it is not super okay to get a 6+ minute work voicemail from your boss, left at 2 am, fawning on you, telling how much he wants to work with her, mentions she is breastfeeding child on “boob”… a 2 am, 6 minute “your awesome” voicemail from anyone….

If this keeps going will be another Depp trial that people will be glued to because parties will introduce same evidence to have it mean entirely different things.

To be fair, there's a pattern of her communicating with him at odd hours too (which I doubt are "odd" for people working on a big project in the film industry). She set him a long rambling text message at 4 a.m. talking about Khaleesi and dragons.

But while I don't quite believe Blake, I don't think the voicemail makes him look good. Lots of people online who are finding it creepy.

[Raises hand for creepy]

I also think her khaleesi text was nuts but where that seemed hyperbolic and "extra", a 6 minute voicemail left at 2am is worse.

It seems like they are both unprofessional but he seems slightly worse. I think also as the director he should have been the one to rein it back in. Instead he escalated.

It sounds like he was bending over backwards to placate her. Her text that mentioned Taylor being one of her dragons, supporting her rewrite sounded like she wanted to pressure him into rewriting the script.

It sounds like he was trying to rein that in, keep her happy. But in doing so, it seems excessive.

However, it was not hostile and he was not threatening her.

I only know her from that video of her interview where she ignored the interviewer and was basically mean.
Her texts to Baldoni have the same mean girl bully flavour. That’s my impression.
I don’t think she will win.

Here's how the text/voicemail exchange over the roof scene she wrote reads to me:

- she sent him the scene and either got a slow or lukewarm response, felt ignored
- so she advocated for it more, including having her husband and Swift advocate, which I think she honestly viewed as having other artists who she thinks he might respect give their stamp if approval
- but he reads this as very threatening and becomes angry at her for "using" Reynolds and Swift to pressure him
- so she goes into over-explaining mode to try and explain that's not how she meant it, but at this point the conflict was set

This whole thing about "he was trying to rein her in" or "she was overstepping" doesn't really make sense to me. This is a debate between creatives about their joint project. They both have leverage. I tend to agree with Lively's approach because I think she's right -- if you are a creative professional and you want a say in your art, you need to advocate for yourself and lean on your network to help. I see nothing wrong with what she did AND I think the degree to which Baldoni/Wayfarer felt threatened by it to be eyeroll inducing. They wanted an actress who would say her lines and hit her marks and nothing more, but they hired someone with a high profile who is more ambitious than that. They are just some tiny studio has only ever made very small movies.

It just comes off as Baldoni feeling threatened by a woman who views herself as his equal, and trying to put her in her place but in a passive aggressive way so that he doesn't appear to be doing that.

I don't know if that's "sexual harassment", maybe not. I do think it shows him to be small and insecure.

She was the actress and he was the director. She involved two very high profile people in order to steamroll his directorial vision. This is intimidating and out of line. If she were truly his equal, she would have stayed in her lane and respected his direction and done her job. I think Baldoni seems insufferable based on all his annoying ramblings, but to me she is wrong on this point.

She was also an executive producer.

That title was added towards the end when she created her own cut.

No, it was some other designation beyond that that was added later. I will butcher this explanation, but what she requested later was a PGA mark, which is some sort of special certification for the “producer who performed a majority of the producing functions on a specific motion picture in a decision-making capacity.”

Correct, there were two debates over her producer credit.

The first happened before filming even started, when they were giving her a producer credit and she wanted "executive producer." A producer credit is fairly meaningless -- lots of actors get them but it doesn't translate to any actual control. Executive producers are generally much more involved.

This is not true at all. You don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the film business.

I know how to read, which is all you need to understand this. Here are excerpts from Baldoni's complaint against Lively:

Page 17:
27. On or about December 31, 2022, Lively agreed to take the lead role of Lily Bloom. As part of the subsequent negotiations, Lively was granted an executive producer credit, a title often given to talent of her stature. (Lively had requested a producer credit, but Wayfarer and Sony demurred, given that such a title would not accurately reflect the role she was asked to play in the production). Wayfarer did not request nor require that Lively contribute to the Film in any capacity beyond her roles as actor and executive producer.

So she was given the executive producer credit before filming started in may of 2023.

Page 88, referring to post-production battles over which cut of the film would be released:
152. Lively was still not satisfied. She continued to extort Wayfarer, Baldoni, and even Sony, threatening to abandon her contractual obligation to promote the Film or approve marketing materials if she wasn’t awarded a producer credit, and though Wayfarer had refused long ago to accede to this request when it was made during initial negotiations, Wayfarer now had its back against the wall and again, had to concede.
153. This still wasn’t enough. Lively later sought the coveted p.g.a. mark on her producer credit—a certified designation licensed by the Producers Guild of America (“PGA”) to identify producers who have performed the majority of the producing work on a motion picture. Neither Baldoni nor Wayfarer believed Lively fulfilled the requisite criteria to earn this mark, but that did not matter to Lively.

I'll note here that these parts of Baldoni's complaint are directly contradictory. He says she asked for an EP credit in 2022 and was given one. He then claims that there was a debate over whether Lively would get any producer credit on the movie when it came out at all. Were they suddenly trying to strip her of any producer credit at all, after agreeing to to make her an executive producer?

But in any case, his own complaint shows that she was made an EP before shooting on the movie began.

The way you double down when called out on your inaccuracies is strange. A producer credit is not "meaningless" as you said in your original post and signifies more hands-on involvement compared to an executive producer, who may just help secure funding and may be perceived a bit more as a vanity credit, although some would find that definition reductive.

I'm also not sure how your quotes support your initial argument? Your post says they pushed back on the EP credit. No, they pushed back on the producer credit. Okay. So...?

Genuinely laughing at you thinking actors are not given meaningless producer credits all the time. It is literally a running joke in the industry. There’s a whole episode on 30 Rock about Jenna briefly getting the producer status. You’re either not in the industry or you’re a producer yourself who got a lil ego bruise

[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:

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.

The NYTimes almost immediately retracted the Palin OP-ED. Totally totally different set of facts.

Yeah, you’re arguing my point although you don’t seem to realize it…. the fact they retracted actually shows there was no malice and that it was one of those minor journalistic mistakes that the law should protect. Palin was a very public figure, yet the case moved forward even though it was clearly a fairly minor mistake in a loose OPINION piece (eg, no one should take it as fact). This present case is actually much worse on the facts for the Times in a way, other than fair report, which I’ve explained may not fully protect them.

no, the retraction meant it was a MAJOR mistake. you think stating that Palin’s ad incited political violence was “minor”? come on.

It was in an op Ed and they said her PAC incited violence, in a theoretical not literal way obviously. It was opinion, which is supposed to be especially protected speech. It wasn’t all that ‘major’ and they retracted right away which shows good faith and that it was a mistake. Which you keep saying means almost no case against a public figure can move forward. But yet it did here, despite the judge ruling early on that issue (and then being reversed).

It was indeed called an “opinion,” but as you (a member of the elite media defense bar) well know, calling something an “opinion” does not shield you from defamation liability. And it made very incindiary factual assertion that Palin’s attack ad directly incited the gifford’s shooting. From the 2nd Circuit:

“ The editorial argued that these two political shootings evidenced the "vicious" nature of American politics. Reflecting on the Loughner shooting and the SarahPAC crosshairs map, the editorial claimed that the "link to political incitement was clear," and noted that Palin’s political action committee had "circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs," suggesting that the congressmembers themselves had been pictured on the map. In the next paragraph, the editorial referenced the Hodgkinson shooting that had happened that day: "Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right."”

Not sure where I said I was elite or a member of the defense bar. But I do have some knowledge, yes, beyond just taking one media law class. And again, not sure why you’re running to be sexist and call me ‘sweetie’ and such. So weird.

But again, you’re sort of arguing my point. The Palin piece was a loose theoretical opinion piece, and they retracted that part. Yet it still survived the AM standard which you keep saying means this present case could never survive. And I’m just pouting out, that a skilled lawyer with weaker facts can
get past these sorts of hurdles, which Bryan Freedman is showing himself to be. He is doing an excellent job so far.

[Anonymous]

^ pointing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a lawyer and a pretty old one at that. Spent most of my career at a very well regarded BigLaw firm, the kind that doesn’t hire anyone who wasn’t on law review. Baldoni’s lawyer is not bad, he’s put together some of the best work I’ve seen from a plaintiff side attorney. Blake’s lawyers on the other hand, are very mid. If you have reviewed a lot of complaints, you can spot it. Some of her allegations are just drafted in a strange way. For example, the birthing scene allegation with the footnote about what generally is worn in partially nude scenes but avoids identifying what Blake was actually wearing. Further the insinuation that an actor and financier were on set to get close to Blake’s crotch is just, well, odd.

There is definitely at least one poster here who is on Blake’s payroll in some capacity.

Lol, yes there are many older Big Law litigators who describe things as "mid" and thinks it's necessary to allege every single detail in an initial complaint or that, alternatively, they should refrain from including an allegation that could, with discovery, be recoverable because it seems "odd ."

Ok, sure.

Np

Hmm, I was only big law for a brief time but still a lawyer for 20+ years and seen a few complaints. I agree with the above.

I do think there is someone very defensive to Blake who posts on here.

Every single page of this thread has at least one person saying Justin is an amazing person getting rail roaded by a mean girl and he did absolutely nothing wrong. But sure. It’s definitely a Blake plant and not just people sick of the blatant internalized misogyny

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1, I am surprised by the posts on here defending Justin like he's some wronged innocent. He sounds like an opportunist who found a nice niche for himself ("I'm a *sensitive* guy who really gets it") and capitalized on it, but it all comes off as very disingenuous to me. Also his book, podcast, and this movie sound like garbage so I can't help but roll my eyes about the comments talking earnestly about how he just want to address toxic masculinity or tell stories of abuse. GMAFB.

But I've also never liked Lively and am totally unsurprised that she's a diva on set and impossible to work with, or that she goes running to her husband to fix things for her when she doesn't get her way. I have also encountered dysfunctional couples like this twice in real life, both in semi-professional contexts where the women would pout and play the victim and then their husbands would come down hard on people but justify it as "protecting" their wives. It's equally annoying as Justin's schtick, and probably ultimately more consequential.

Ugh. I have zero interest in ever paying money to see anything any of these people ever make again. There are lots of talented artists out there who aren't like this.

I don't care for his male feminist schtick and his Man Enough book sounds boring. But I do believe he was railroaded by two powerful people and that he has very credible rebuttals for all of Blake's sexual harassment claims. I think you're conflating the comments here with a Justin Baldoni subreddit or something, because I haven't seen anything here really indicating we're legitimate fans of his. It's really more anti-Lively here than pro-Justin.

I'm the PP and I've only read about that s conflict here. There have definitely been posts on here that are very "pro-Justin" and painting him as some wonderful person. I don't even get the posts painting him as a victim, tbh. I don't think Lively is a victim either. I think they are both narcissistic, grating people who made a crappy movie together and got embroiled in a pissing match. I think Lively comes off worse because of Reynolds and because she had more leverage. But I don't view either as a victim.

How like refreshingly balanced sister friend!!!!

She had a lead story published in the NYT accusing him of sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation based on all lies. He totally deserved it tho right? He’s like not ironic and cool so he should get buried!!!! Yay!!

Again, for those with a spare brain cell - Bad Art Friend II. Incredibly depressing that one idiot Kool Kid can attract people like this poster - zero analytical ability. Zero discernment. He had his life blown up because he was too flexible with a world-class ass-ache. That’s his crime.

[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:

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.

Defense BAR. Not defense ‘scene’. And yes, your use of strange acronyms and reference to non practicing attorneys leads me to believe you don’t know this area of the law very well. Which is fine. I don’t know the SH side of things that well. The difference is that most people admit what they don’t know. You are amusing in that you act like you are an expert when you’re clearly not.

I think B will get discovery, but sure, let’s wait and see.

Sweetie you were the one who said “defense scene,” not me. And despite your claim to be a member of the elite corps of the defense BAR, you still have done zero to actually detail what in the Baldoni complaint parallels Dominion or even Palin, and what plausibly pleads all the necessary elements especially actual malice.

Meanwhile I have yet to see a single article covering this story that quotes any lawyer saying the claim is strong. Maybe you saw one?

This entire DCUM chain started because of a lawyer on a podcast saying the NYT had risk in this case…

People who know this area of the law well tend to love the NYT, and most aren’t going to run to bet against it. And it’s not like people other than legal nerds care about this issue that much in the first place. But we’ll see what legal analysis comes out as this progresses. I’d love to read it.

Yeah, the point isn't that there are no lawyers coming out saying the claim is strong. There are little to no mainstream pieces, period, featuring lawyers that are weighing in on this case. I have to get my insight from this place or the rare legal expert on tiktok who's actually following it and neutral (despite the insistence that the posters here stan Justin, I really don't want to hear takes from crazed people who are in love with the man).

There were a couple of threads on r/law, but there was no actual meaningful analysis and the posters clearly had only read the NYTimes piece.