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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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

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

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.[/quote]

Huh? What other questions? [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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? [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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 ? 🤣[/quote]

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[/quote]

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.[/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