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 "Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims "
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]Pro BL side is reaching hard; they’re now claiming that the CCs were in touch with TAG via alternate personas. Why can’t they believe people HATE Blake? She’s a tone deaf moron who made light of domestic violence during promo for a movie that made $350 million. It’s not like this bad press was generated for a movie that no one saw, which would have been unusual. [/quote] Not a BL supporter, but both can be true. That's almost surely the case. There really was a proposal from TAG about an untraceable PR campaign. Baldoni really did hire them and write "this is what we would need." There really are texts about the narrative shifting "thanks to Jed's team." So it appears [i]something [/i]was planned and something was done. It's also surely true many people hate and hated Blake all by themselves. Indeed from what we know of the smear campaign, they were not manufacturing lies or new material but pulling from old, existing material that painted Blake in a bad light, going back to old stories about her being difficult, bullying, etc. The question is really how far the planned campaign went and the scope of it. Wayfarer of course claims they didn't need it because Jed's "monitoring" showed it was all organic and he advised them not to do anything. Based on the way they talk in the texts at the time it was happening, I'm skeptical of that. What we don't know if the hate was 99% organic or 50% organic or 5% organic or whatever. And probably never will. I think the case raises interesting issues and gives us a look into the Hollywood PR machine. And that's why it ends up on these kinds of boring tangents like "how was content creator defined in the first interrogatory." For me, I do want to get to the truth... if BL issued the google subpoena to content creators who merely spoke badly about her, I find that despicable. If the creators are lying about being in contact with TAG and BL is telling the truth, I will give BL credit. If the creators are somehow not lying and they were indirectly manipulated by TAG then that's super interesting and I want to know that too, but agree this is a reach.[/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