Reply to Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Just to review: the NYT is trash, not to be trusted. But Perez Hilton and the Daily Mail are infallible.

Go JB! xoxo[/quote]

Well let’s take inventory. The NYT ran the Baldoni hit piece with the sham subpoena as cover. The Daily Mail did actual investigative journalism exposing the sham subpoena. The NYT still hasn’t reported on the sham subpoena and probably won’t. The Daily Fail may be a tabloid, but even a broke clock is right twice a day. [/quote]

And to prove how fake this was from the get-go and how it's standard operating procedure at [i]The Times[/i], that hack Megan Twohey is not only not fired, she'll be promoted and/or rewarded with a windfall from Hollywood for being a good foot soldier.

It's also worth noting Twohey is from Washington and is a GU alum. It's not out of the question she is on her personally spinning.[/quote]

No. She will be mocked and judged by other NYT reporters for messing this stupid non-story up and being blinded into thinking she’s a celebrity insider and friends/confidants with the Blakes of the world. [/quote]

Totally agree with you. The pp is being nuts. The journalist will be disgraced. I feel bad for her. She was duped [/quote]

Disgraced? Y'all are naive as hell. Is Jake Tapper disgraced running point for senile Biden? He’s still paid millions a year, still an CNN star, and was just given a multi-million book deal detailing he knew all along Biden was losing his mind (in contrast to his actual coverage on CNN!).

Twohey has not and will not be fired. She will become a multi-millionaire, if she isn’t already, off a career peddling bullshit.[/quote]

You clearly don’t understand this world. It’s fine. I’m not saying she’ll be fired but she will be put on ice and this will be a major hit to her credibility. She’s not going to become a ‘multi millionaire’ off this. I don’t think you understand News or journalism at all. [/quote]

+1 that some PPs do not understand this world. Becoming a fake entertainer journalist like Tapper or any of the other CNN etc types could bring her millions, sure. And if that’s her goal, it could happen. But she will never be a respected reporter again and yes, among a certain set, that is something that money can’t buy. Becoming a respected investigative reporter at the NYT, New Yorker, maybe ProPublica - you’ll notice i’m not listing cable news anchor positions here - is all about reputation and the quality of the work, and it is something that Tapper and his ilk can’t buy. Maybe they don’t want it anyway, but among people who do want it or care about these things, it is very hard to achieve. Of course it is gatekeeping, but I’m telling you how it works. Blowing it on Blake Lively was a total waste and disappointing. She can’t get that reputation prestige back. And it reflects poorly on NYT editors and leadership for allowing it to happen, at a time when the paper was already diminished. She has colleagues who are furious about this, I assure you, because the NYT brand erosion also undermines them. [/quote]

Jake tapper was an anchor for years. Megan is a long time journalist and 50 yo. She’s not suddenly going to pivot to a multi million dollar anchor job and book deals- she’s too old, that’s not really her skill set and you don’t just get handed book huge book deals after a failed piece that will likely cause her employer boat loads of money in legal fees. She got her book deal after Weinstein and I doubt there are any more coming.

Blake has essentially ruined Megan’s career. I still can’t quite figure out what she, her editors and others at NYT let this piece go through. It was essentially a single source piece (sure, w the cover of the filing) with *multiple* potential defamation plaintiffs, and they gave the subjects less than 24 hours to respond. Daily Mail would have gone for comment earlier imo. Why didn’t the times? It’s unfathomable to me. [/quote]

+1
Though I would say that Meghan and the NYT editors severely damaged their own careers, not Blake Lively. Blake Lively's people figured out that Meghan was an easy mark for placing this story and ... it worked. Depressing. [/quote]

Well, they trusted their source. Sucks. I blame lively, but yes, they had a part too. [/quote]

Defamation wise they're fine, but journalistically I'm surprised Megan didn't at least try to interview some cast and crew about the set, if she didn't want to go to Baldoni directly. That much is on her.[/quote]

She should have gone to Baldonis side much earlier. This wasn’t a Weinstein situation where you had dozens of people saying the same thing over years.

And she dragged in arguably private people like the PR people.

I’m someone who thinks fair report won’t save the NYT completely [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics