Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Reply to "Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Lively's list of stuff Baldoni boosted or planted. Interesting read. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.949.1.pdf[/quote] Don't have time to read, but I'm assuming this is the list of stuff she *thinks* he planted?[/quote] Most of it is boosting, where someone sends a link, says to boost it, and someone flags to Jed. There's a couple that describe narratives they asked the press to write, and one text where Katie Case says "the comments are us lol." Then they mix it in with more benign stuff like Justin boosting things that make him look good, to pad it out. It's not a huge bombshell but it's not nothing and it's pretty clear they weren't flagging Jed to monitor stuff they already found. But enough to convince a jury, I don't know. [/quote] I only skimmed but this seems like a pretty accurate summary. TBH, including all the stuff that is clearly just Justin and his team boosting positive stories about him or trying to sell a narrative that all was well on set (or just part of the creative process) makes it feel like it's no big deal. I wish they'd strip all that stuff out and just list the places where they have evidence of Abel, TAG, or Jed boosting negative stories about Blake, claiming credit for negative comments about her, etc. If it was just this, it would be easier to evaluate if it feels like enough to convince a jury. I do think they are really hurting for all the Signal chat stuff here. It's tough when they have texts where someone identifies something online and says "we'll flag to Jed" and then... we don't know what happened. To me this is a big unanswered question. I don't buy what Jed is saying about "just monitoring" -- it doesn't make sense based on how his services were described internally by TAG or Wayfarer, and doesn't make sense with the text info we have about his work. But that doesn't mean he was doing what Lively was alleging. It's frustrating to have that gap and not be able to assess for myself if whatever Jed did was okay or not. I also would love to know what he did just as a consumer of information online -- I feel like it might provide some insight that could help me be a smarter consumer. [/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