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]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?[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

There are general standards, yes. You’re right, they’re not necessarily totally precise, of course. But discovery will show drafts, comments from other editors and fact checkers and suggestions they made, etc, And how loose the NYT writer played with these suggestions will absolutely come into play to show if she was sloppy and ‘wanted’ this story, leading her to have blinders on. I’m aware of NYT v Sullivan obviously and the general parameters of defamation law limitations and why they exist… but I think this case has a number of factors at play that could lead it to a jury, and sorry, juries aren’t so precise about the law, they tend to think the media is sloppy, that companies have insurance to pay out big settlement, etc. [/quote]

“sloppy” is far from “actual malice.” They may not even beat MTD if all they have is “sloppy.” the first amendment protects sloppy reporting and thank god for that. [/quote]

Look, I think you took a first amendment or media class and think you know a lot more than you think you do. But what I’m saying is that I think there are factors that could get this to a jury- which I explained above- and once it’s in front of a jury, yes, ‘sloppiness’ can matter to people, many of whom don’t like the media, and who are not going to be overly precise about legal standards [/quote]

please cite to the facts alleged that tend to show actual malice. [/quote]

As I pointed out already, those will come out in discovery, but at this stage the judge must assess the case in the view most favorable to the Ps in deciding whether to move it forward or not. You keep jumping to discussing AM because I think you know that general standard from your intro media law class, but right now this is really more of a Fair Report anti SLAPP case. [/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