Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

No one is saying he's an amazing person. Stop with the blatant lies.

[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.

I already posted her TikTok here, but I swear I'm not her or her PR person: I recommend https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+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.

I disagree entirely. They don’t need particularly strong evidence which is what you’re perhaps unintentionally suggesting. That’s not what’s up here.

There is not only NO evidence that she was harassed, but rather there is abundant evidence that she lied about all of it. This isn’t about believing JLaw but not tacky Khaleesi because of a parasocial relationship. Lively has no evidence at all that anything she has said is within a reasonable distance to truth. She lied. She is a liar. Why are people so uncomfortable with that? She is the only accuser I’ve ever read of in my life who I know to be lying about this kind of thing - I always default to believing accusers so the fact that this man has a wealth of evidence backing him is stunning. She does not have her view and he his. She literally lied ENTIRELY about the “kissing my neck and saying it smells so good” scene. We saw it ultimately in full. She lied. Like a liar.

Blake Lively is in no way being held to a high standard. She lied her ass off in every way conceivable about all of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Saying women who don’t believe an elitist A lister got sexually harassed by a no name subservient personality type actor are suffering from internalized misogyny is such a dumb comment that it’s not worth engaging. The only reason I replied is because I hope others ignore your comment and continue the legal discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a tale as old as time. A he said she said, the he is a prominent hollywood player who hires a vicious PR firm, the internet rips the woman apart. Zero attempts to look at the situation from both sides. Please provide a single example where in a contentious dispute between a man and a woman in hollywood the woman is believed and the man is injured.

It only happens when someone is SUCH a predator that they assault SO many women that it can't be explained away (weinstein/cosby). And even then they end up getting out of jail!

Prediction: this turns into a 150 page thread talking about what a see you next tuesday you all think she is. Just like all the other multi hundred long page threads in this forum. There isn't one about a man though! It's ALWAYS about the woman. Examine your ingrained misogyny people.

Second prediction: I get a bunch of people replying to me yelling about Blake being awful and Baldoni being her victim and I just blindly take the woman's side.

I'll just get in front of all of those and tell you what I would say in response. These situations are almost always complex with different levels of power at play (in this case, while Lively and Reynolds have significantly higher household name recognition, Baldoni has extremely powerful industry connections, so is not the david to their goliath). And I believe that almost every celebrity is somewhat egotistical/narcissistic almost by the nature of the gig. Therefore it is my belief that there is almost NEVER a party completely innocent here. There is always blame to be found on both sides because it is almost always giant egos fighting with each other. But here, there is never nuance, it is always the woman sucks and the poor man we had a crush on 10 years ago because he was hot in that movie that one time is innocent.

lol at Baldoni being considered a Hollywood power player with "extremely powerful industry connections." Baldoni is backed by a billionaire with no ties to Hollywood. That matters, and is why Blake and Ryan were able to throw around their weight so much. You seem to acknowledge the complicated dynamics here yet are getting so many basic things wrong.

Thanks for the bolded, exactly. While blake attended the film with other cast members, baldoni attended with sony execs. He has a whole production studio with deep deep pockets. I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to further expound upon that.

Yeah, he's so powerful that he was sent to the basement during his own premiere.

Yeah because he went against Sony’s marketing plan for the film that he was committed to. Sony explicitly wanted the marketing in line with how Blake and the rest of the cast promoted it. He went rogue and engaged with the DV themes, which won him internet brownie points but put him on the outs with Sony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a tale as old as time. A he said she said, the he is a prominent hollywood player who hires a vicious PR firm, the internet rips the woman apart. Zero attempts to look at the situation from both sides. Please provide a single example where in a contentious dispute between a man and a woman in hollywood the woman is believed and the man is injured.

It only happens when someone is SUCH a predator that they assault SO many women that it can't be explained away (weinstein/cosby). And even then they end up getting out of jail!

Prediction: this turns into a 150 page thread talking about what a see you next tuesday you all think she is. Just like all the other multi hundred long page threads in this forum. There isn't one about a man though! It's ALWAYS about the woman. Examine your ingrained misogyny people.

Second prediction: I get a bunch of people replying to me yelling about Blake being awful and Baldoni being her victim and I just blindly take the woman's side.

I'll just get in front of all of those and tell you what I would say in response. These situations are almost always complex with different levels of power at play (in this case, while Lively and Reynolds have significantly higher household name recognition, Baldoni has extremely powerful industry connections, so is not the david to their goliath). And I believe that almost every celebrity is somewhat egotistical/narcissistic almost by the nature of the gig. Therefore it is my belief that there is almost NEVER a party completely innocent here. There is always blame to be found on both sides because it is almost always giant egos fighting with each other. But here, there is never nuance, it is always the woman sucks and the poor man we had a crush on 10 years ago because he was hot in that movie that one time is innocent.

lol at Baldoni being considered a Hollywood power player with "extremely powerful industry connections." Baldoni is backed by a billionaire with no ties to Hollywood. That matters, and is why Blake and Ryan were able to throw around their weight so much. You seem to acknowledge the complicated dynamics here yet are getting so many basic things wrong.

Thanks for the bolded, exactly. While blake attended the film with other cast members, baldoni attended with sony execs. He has a whole production studio with deep deep pockets. I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to further expound upon that.

Yeah, he's so powerful that he was sent to the basement during his own premiere.

Yeah because he went against Sony’s marketing plan for the film that he was committed to. Sony explicitly wanted the marketing in line with how Blake and the rest of the cast promoted it. He went rogue and engaged with the DV themes, which won him internet brownie points but put him on the outs with Sony.

This is another blatant lie. Sony did not "explicitly" want the marketing in line with how Blake promoted it, its suggestions were very general guidelines. Blake promoted her alcohol brand for a movie about domestic violence, and used puns like "Ryle you wait," despite the connection between DV and alcohol use. Sony did not tell her to do that. Sony did not tell her to use stupid phrases like "bring your friends and bring your florals" and work with food content creators.

Pages 74 and 75: https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/1629cc34e562e325/4410b1d9-full.pdf

[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:The NYT podcast is very telling.

However, I don’t think he ever thought he’d win it, but wanted discovery.

The billionaire is also Bahai and his wife is involved with Wayfair, so $ spigot is not going to be turned off soon.

Totally disagree, I just listened to it and would like that half hour back. Listen if you want to hear Twohey regurgitate her article while her co worker barely reacts. She doesn’t say one word about how Blake’s complaint came to her attention (CA complaint was not public) nor does she say anything about how she investigated the story. It’s a complete joke, about what you would expect from a newspaper interviewing their own reporter about an article they are being sued for.

I read the transcript in 5 minutes. It’s a good summary for anyone who’s not dialed in.

Do you have a link to it? I can’t find it on the NYT app

Babe, are you trolling with all these questions about where basic things are? I was able to pull up the episode with the transcript after a quick google search.

Huh? What other questions?

DP but there have been multiple questions about this podcast that are like "please summarize it for me here" or "can you link I can't possibly find it." It's weird.

Especially in light of the fact it’s a complete nothing burger, I’d be interested in Twomey being interviewed by another outlet, instead of a NY Times recitation of her article.

NP. I just listened to it. Pretty astounding that the NYT gave all of them just 14 hours to respond. You can argue Baldoni would have a lawyer on call, but the PR people? So weird that they felt the need to rush this story. There was nothing urgent about it that I can see.

That doesn't strike me as "astounding." It sounds pretty typical. If a newspaper does a deeply researched piece on your wrongdoing which includes actual text messages they have verified as true, they aren't going to give you days to get ahead of that narrative and undermine their reporting. They are going to give you enough time to respond and then publish.

But in any case, Baldoni actually responded with a statement within just a couple hours, so it turns out that 14 hours was more than enough.

I don't think we know how much time they gave the PR people, actually. It's not like Baldoni lives with Melissa Nathan. Presumably they contacted people separately.

True, we don’t know if the PR people got extra time, but if they did, it seems odd it wasn’t mentioned. At all. In fact it’s not clear to me they got any direct heads up from this interview, just Baldoni, even though they are made to look pretty terrible.

I worked in journalism for awhile, and 14 hours is not a lot of time for a piece that isn’t breaking news and which is so detailed and potentially devastating to various people’s reputations. Weinstein was given far more time, as one example.

And Baldonis lawyer statement is fine, but obviously a blanket statement like that isn’t all that compelling- which the NYT knows- and I’m sure Baldoni and the PR people would have preferred to have more time to provide detail of what parts of the piece were incorrect, and to provide their perspective, which is what a good journalist typically tries to do, especially for something so inherently he said/she said. It’s just strangely lazy reporting from the NYT, and it’s not like Hollywood gossip is their typical beat. Why the rush to go out with this story?

It's not weird they don't mention how much time the PR people got or anything about them because no one actually cares about them. Of course the story focuses on the main characters.

At some point there may be some look into their situation but that's not the main focus of the story. Like according to Lively's complaint, her assistant and others were present for many of the weird and discomforting things that happened with Baldoni and Heath. No one focuses on that though, they focus on Blake Lively because she's famous and they aren't. Same thing.

That’s not entirely accurate in that the difference is these people were made to look horrible. Livelys people are just background

I mean... they are kind of horrible? They are PR people. Melissa Nathan helped Johnny Depp pay armies of online posters to call Amber Heard crazy, unstable, and an abuser. She's not an innocent caught in the crossfire. Her chosen profession is deeply revolting.

Sure, arguably they are not great people, but that doesn’t mean they still don’t deserve a heads up when the f’in NYT runs a hit piece on them.

I'm sure they got one. Are they alleging they didn't? These people are extremely media savvy -- they work in PR at the highest level! I'm sure they were given a chance to comment on the piece and they also have tons of media contacts so if there is an aspect of this story they want to get out, they can. I believe Jennifer Abel's sister works at Page 6? They know people at Variety, Deadline, you name it. In fact I'm sure they've got NYTs reporters on speed dial.

This narrative that these poor PR professionals just had no idea what was about to drop is insane. Of course they knew. They also knew they'd been caught redhanded and their first issue was "how did you get the texts." Not whether they were real -- they knew they were real and damning.

Sure, they’re not totally unsophisticated but PR are not at all used to being the story themselves, and I’m sure it was incredibly unnerving to be taken down like this in the NYT. And again, 14 hours is just not a lot of time especially bc there was no reason I can see that the NYT needed to rush to publish this. Why? Were they worried they’d get scooped by the daily mail ? 🤣

I mean, they arguable did get scooped. TMZ ran before NYT and who do you think leaked that? All of baldoni’s leaks have been TMZ and Daily Mail

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a tale as old as time. A he said she said, the he is a prominent hollywood player who hires a vicious PR firm, the internet rips the woman apart. Zero attempts to look at the situation from both sides. Please provide a single example where in a contentious dispute between a man and a woman in hollywood the woman is believed and the man is injured.

It only happens when someone is SUCH a predator that they assault SO many women that it can't be explained away (weinstein/cosby). And even then they end up getting out of jail!

Prediction: this turns into a 150 page thread talking about what a see you next tuesday you all think she is. Just like all the other multi hundred long page threads in this forum. There isn't one about a man though! It's ALWAYS about the woman. Examine your ingrained misogyny people.

Second prediction: I get a bunch of people replying to me yelling about Blake being awful and Baldoni being her victim and I just blindly take the woman's side.

I'll just get in front of all of those and tell you what I would say in response. These situations are almost always complex with different levels of power at play (in this case, while Lively and Reynolds have significantly higher household name recognition, Baldoni has extremely powerful industry connections, so is not the david to their goliath). And I believe that almost every celebrity is somewhat egotistical/narcissistic almost by the nature of the gig. Therefore it is my belief that there is almost NEVER a party completely innocent here. There is always blame to be found on both sides because it is almost always giant egos fighting with each other. But here, there is never nuance, it is always the woman sucks and the poor man we had a crush on 10 years ago because he was hot in that movie that one time is innocent.

lol at Baldoni being considered a Hollywood power player with "extremely powerful industry connections." Baldoni is backed by a billionaire with no ties to Hollywood. That matters, and is why Blake and Ryan were able to throw around their weight so much. You seem to acknowledge the complicated dynamics here yet are getting so many basic things wrong.

Thanks for the bolded, exactly. While blake attended the film with other cast members, baldoni attended with sony execs. He has a whole production studio with deep deep pockets. I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to further expound upon that.

Yeah, he's so powerful that he was sent to the basement during his own premiere.

Yeah because he went against Sony’s marketing plan for the film that he was committed to. Sony explicitly wanted the marketing in line with how Blake and the rest of the cast promoted it. He went rogue and engaged with the DV themes, which won him internet brownie points but put him on the outs with Sony.

This is another blatant lie. Sony did not "explicitly" want the marketing in line with how Blake promoted it, its suggestions were very general guidelines. Blake promoted her alcohol brand for a movie about domestic violence, and used puns like "Ryle you wait," despite the connection between DV and alcohol use. Sony did not tell her to do that. Sony did not tell her to use stupid phrases like "bring your friends and bring your florals" and work with food content creators.

Pages 74 and 75: https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/1629cc34e562e325/4410b1d9-full.pdf

She is such an idiot. She was getting roasted well before Baldoni retained PR by people who cared about the book. She made puns over the wife-beating characters name and had that infamous interview where when asked about DV resources for viewers, snapped about people wanting her phone number to stalk her.

[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:The NYT podcast is very telling.

However, I don’t think he ever thought he’d win it, but wanted discovery.

The billionaire is also Bahai and his wife is involved with Wayfair, so $ spigot is not going to be turned off soon.

Totally disagree, I just listened to it and would like that half hour back. Listen if you want to hear Twohey regurgitate her article while her co worker barely reacts. She doesn’t say one word about how Blake’s complaint came to her attention (CA complaint was not public) nor does she say anything about how she investigated the story. It’s a complete joke, about what you would expect from a newspaper interviewing their own reporter about an article they are being sued for.

I read the transcript in 5 minutes. It’s a good summary for anyone who’s not dialed in.

Do you have a link to it? I can’t find it on the NYT app

Babe, are you trolling with all these questions about where basic things are? I was able to pull up the episode with the transcript after a quick google search.

Huh? What other questions?

DP but there have been multiple questions about this podcast that are like "please summarize it for me here" or "can you link I can't possibly find it." It's weird.

Especially in light of the fact it’s a complete nothing burger, I’d be interested in Twomey being interviewed by another outlet, instead of a NY Times recitation of her article.

NP. I just listened to it. Pretty astounding that the NYT gave all of them just 14 hours to respond. You can argue Baldoni would have a lawyer on call, but the PR people? So weird that they felt the need to rush this story. There was nothing urgent about it that I can see.

That doesn't strike me as "astounding." It sounds pretty typical. If a newspaper does a deeply researched piece on your wrongdoing which includes actual text messages they have verified as true, they aren't going to give you days to get ahead of that narrative and undermine their reporting. They are going to give you enough time to respond and then publish.

But in any case, Baldoni actually responded with a statement within just a couple hours, so it turns out that 14 hours was more than enough.

I don't think we know how much time they gave the PR people, actually. It's not like Baldoni lives with Melissa Nathan. Presumably they contacted people separately.

True, we don’t know if the PR people got extra time, but if they did, it seems odd it wasn’t mentioned. At all. In fact it’s not clear to me they got any direct heads up from this interview, just Baldoni, even though they are made to look pretty terrible.

I worked in journalism for awhile, and 14 hours is not a lot of time for a piece that isn’t breaking news and which is so detailed and potentially devastating to various people’s reputations. Weinstein was given far more time, as one example.

And Baldonis lawyer statement is fine, but obviously a blanket statement like that isn’t all that compelling- which the NYT knows- and I’m sure Baldoni and the PR people would have preferred to have more time to provide detail of what parts of the piece were incorrect, and to provide their perspective, which is what a good journalist typically tries to do, especially for something so inherently he said/she said. It’s just strangely lazy reporting from the NYT, and it’s not like Hollywood gossip is their typical beat. Why the rush to go out with this story?

It's not weird they don't mention how much time the PR people got or anything about them because no one actually cares about them. Of course the story focuses on the main characters.

At some point there may be some look into their situation but that's not the main focus of the story. Like according to Lively's complaint, her assistant and others were present for many of the weird and discomforting things that happened with Baldoni and Heath. No one focuses on that though, they focus on Blake Lively because she's famous and they aren't. Same thing.

That’s not entirely accurate in that the difference is these people were made to look horrible. Livelys people are just background

I mean... they are kind of horrible? They are PR people. Melissa Nathan helped Johnny Depp pay armies of online posters to call Amber Heard crazy, unstable, and an abuser. She's not an innocent caught in the crossfire. Her chosen profession is deeply revolting.

Sure, arguably they are not great people, but that doesn’t mean they still don’t deserve a heads up when the f’in NYT runs a hit piece on them.

I'm sure they got one. Are they alleging they didn't? These people are extremely media savvy -- they work in PR at the highest level! I'm sure they were given a chance to comment on the piece and they also have tons of media contacts so if there is an aspect of this story they want to get out, they can. I believe Jennifer Abel's sister works at Page 6? They know people at Variety, Deadline, you name it. In fact I'm sure they've got NYTs reporters on speed dial.

This narrative that these poor PR professionals just had no idea what was about to drop is insane. Of course they knew. They also knew they'd been caught redhanded and their first issue was "how did you get the texts." Not whether they were real -- they knew they were real and damning.

Sure, they’re not totally unsophisticated but PR are not at all used to being the story themselves, and I’m sure it was incredibly unnerving to be taken down like this in the NYT. And again, 14 hours is just not a lot of time especially bc there was no reason I can see that the NYT needed to rush to publish this. Why? Were they worried they’d get scooped by the daily mail ? 🤣

I mean, they arguable did get scooped. TMZ ran before NYT and who do you think leaked that? All of baldoni’s leaks have been TMZ and Daily Mail

Please cite the proof of his leaks.

If you don’t want pushback, stop lying.

Stop lying about Reddit, to boot. I hate Reddit - but it’s incredibly pro Lively. The most popular forums with millions of members that discuss this kind of thing, Faux Moi and Pop Culture, have banned all discussion documenting how much she lied. She has power and her “side” is certainly slanting the discussion.

[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: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.

I already posted her TikTok here, but I swear I'm not her or her PR person: I recommend https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden

I don’t know why you keep posting her, as a lawyer, I don’t find her analysis that great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

The latter. It would have come out regardless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a tale as old as time. A he said she said, the he is a prominent hollywood player who hires a vicious PR firm, the internet rips the woman apart. Zero attempts to look at the situation from both sides. Please provide a single example where in a contentious dispute between a man and a woman in hollywood the woman is believed and the man is injured.

It only happens when someone is SUCH a predator that they assault SO many women that it can't be explained away (weinstein/cosby). And even then they end up getting out of jail!

Prediction: this turns into a 150 page thread talking about what a see you next tuesday you all think she is. Just like all the other multi hundred long page threads in this forum. There isn't one about a man though! It's ALWAYS about the woman. Examine your ingrained misogyny people.

Second prediction: I get a bunch of people replying to me yelling about Blake being awful and Baldoni being her victim and I just blindly take the woman's side.

I'll just get in front of all of those and tell you what I would say in response. These situations are almost always complex with different levels of power at play (in this case, while Lively and Reynolds have significantly higher household name recognition, Baldoni has extremely powerful industry connections, so is not the david to their goliath). And I believe that almost every celebrity is somewhat egotistical/narcissistic almost by the nature of the gig. Therefore it is my belief that there is almost NEVER a party completely innocent here. There is always blame to be found on both sides because it is almost always giant egos fighting with each other. But here, there is never nuance, it is always the woman sucks and the poor man we had a crush on 10 years ago because he was hot in that movie that one time is innocent.

lol at Baldoni being considered a Hollywood power player with "extremely powerful industry connections." Baldoni is backed by a billionaire with no ties to Hollywood. That matters, and is why Blake and Ryan were able to throw around their weight so much. You seem to acknowledge the complicated dynamics here yet are getting so many basic things wrong.

Thanks for the bolded, exactly. While blake attended the film with other cast members, baldoni attended with sony execs. He has a whole production studio with deep deep pockets. I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to further expound upon that.

Yeah, he's so powerful that he was sent to the basement during his own premiere.

Yeah because he went against Sony’s marketing plan for the film that he was committed to. Sony explicitly wanted the marketing in line with how Blake and the rest of the cast promoted it. He went rogue and engaged with the DV themes, which won him internet brownie points but put him on the outs with Sony.

Sony overruled Justin at every turn in favor of Blake, even going so far as giving her the power of final cut, but Blake was powerless to push back on its marketing guidelines? That makes *no* sense.

[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: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.

I already posted her TikTok here, but I swear I'm not her or her PR person: I recommend https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden

I don’t know why you keep posting her, as a lawyer, I don’t find her analysis that great.

What do you dislike? Asking genuinely, since I can't find a lot of good consistent sources about this case out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+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.

PP again and similarly they were both bad actors in Bad Art Friend. Yes the author who had all the friends and was considered the better writer by the "writing community" was worse because she was a bully, but the other woman was also genuinely grating, absolutely milked her kidney donation for sympathy and likes online, and then made the situation worse by not knowing when to let it go and move on.

I don't care if anyone is "ironic and cool." Sometimes professional conflicts happen and you have to learn how to navigate them with your own dignity intact. I've been in situations like this before and I have always been much more the Baldoni or the Dawn because I've never been in a powerful position and I've encountered plenty of industry "mean girls." But I've also learned you can shoot yourself in the foot by lacking self awareness or dragging out conflicts, and also that there are certain behaviors that can make you the target of people like this, and you need to take responsibility for them. I think Baldoni set himself up for this by hanging his career reputation on the idea of himself being a "male feminist" which (1) is a deeply annoying, performative, manipulative posture to begin with, and (2) made it harder for him every step of the way because he was working so hard to be the "nice guy" that he failed to set useful boundaries with Lively and behaved IMO very unprofessionally throughout the shoot of the movie.

That doesn't mean I think he's a sexual harasser. But do I think he's an innocent nobody who was taken advantage of here? Not really. He was running a grift with his "man enough" schtick.

In a weird way I feel like everyone involved in this mess kind of deserves each other. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a tale as old as time. A he said she said, the he is a prominent hollywood player who hires a vicious PR firm, the internet rips the woman apart. Zero attempts to look at the situation from both sides. Please provide a single example where in a contentious dispute between a man and a woman in hollywood the woman is believed and the man is injured.

It only happens when someone is SUCH a predator that they assault SO many women that it can't be explained away (weinstein/cosby). And even then they end up getting out of jail!

Prediction: this turns into a 150 page thread talking about what a see you next tuesday you all think she is. Just like all the other multi hundred long page threads in this forum. There isn't one about a man though! It's ALWAYS about the woman. Examine your ingrained misogyny people.

Second prediction: I get a bunch of people replying to me yelling about Blake being awful and Baldoni being her victim and I just blindly take the woman's side.

I'll just get in front of all of those and tell you what I would say in response. These situations are almost always complex with different levels of power at play (in this case, while Lively and Reynolds have significantly higher household name recognition, Baldoni has extremely powerful industry connections, so is not the david to their goliath). And I believe that almost every celebrity is somewhat egotistical/narcissistic almost by the nature of the gig. Therefore it is my belief that there is almost NEVER a party completely innocent here. There is always blame to be found on both sides because it is almost always giant egos fighting with each other. But here, there is never nuance, it is always the woman sucks and the poor man we had a crush on 10 years ago because he was hot in that movie that one time is innocent.

lol at Baldoni being considered a Hollywood power player with "extremely powerful industry connections." Baldoni is backed by a billionaire with no ties to Hollywood. That matters, and is why Blake and Ryan were able to throw around their weight so much. You seem to acknowledge the complicated dynamics here yet are getting so many basic things wrong.

Thanks for the bolded, exactly. While blake attended the film with other cast members, baldoni attended with sony execs. He has a whole production studio with deep deep pockets. I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to further expound upon that.

Yeah, he's so powerful that he was sent to the basement during his own premiere.

Yeah because he went against Sony’s marketing plan for the film that he was committed to. Sony explicitly wanted the marketing in line with how Blake and the rest of the cast promoted it. He went rogue and engaged with the DV themes, which won him internet brownie points but put him on the outs with Sony.

Sony overruled Justin at every turn in favor of Blake, even going so far as giving her the power of final cut, but Blake was powerless to push back on its marketing guidelines? That makes *no* sense.

DP but that's a twisting of Lively's arguments there. Lively didn't want to push back on the marketing guidelines. She agreed with them. She was happy to promote the movie as Sony requested, as a "girls night out" empowerment story and an excuse to break out "your florals."

Her complaint alleges that Baldoni also agreed to that marketing plan (and it was up to Sony to outline a marketing plan and part of the distribution agreement with Wayfarer that Sony would set the marketing tone because they were footing the bill for it) but then he did an end-run around it by insisting on talking up the domestic violence angle. And the documents/texts from his PR agency reveal that this was an intentional tactic to make Lively look stupid and unserious -- they knew if Lively followed Sony's marketing angle and Baldoni instead talked about the movie as a serious look at DV (which, for the record, it isn't), he would look like the feminist advocate for DV survivors and she'd look stupid. Which she did.

Lively's not saying it's unfair Baldoni got to talk about DV and she didn't. She's saying that Baldoni violated the marketing plan by talking about DV and that he did so as part of a coordinated PR attack on Lively.