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]Just to be clear, it appears Blake is adding additional defendants, not plaintiffs.[/quote]

Oof I believe Justin’s side but that doesn’t sound good for him. [/quote]

Can you expand on why? Do you think this is Jed Wallace? I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop on that. The retaliation claims are much stronger than her harassment claims and the Jed Wallace issue is a major problem for Baldoni and the PR folks. But especially Baldoni because it's very hard to argue against retaliation if it turns out he hired Jed, just because of what Jed does. He can argue the PR folks were there to protect his rep, not to take down Lively. But Wallace is a hired gun who destroys reps online (like Heard's).[/quote]

Dp I can’t remember exactly but I think Justin’s complaint is arguing they didn’t need Jed to do what he does because the Blake hate was organic, right? I find that hard to believe but I also wouldn’t find it unbelievable if he didn’t have to either[/quote]

I can't remember either and don't have time right now to dig through Baldoni's complaint.

I remember specifically the discussion of Wallace in Lively's complaint because it was also highlighted in the NYT's piece which focused much more on the PR angle and got more into who Wallace is. In Lively's complaint, there are texts between the PR people about hiring Jed and then at some point they are discussing the negative sentiment towards Lively online and say something like "thanks to Jed's people." That's quite damning because it indicates that not only was Jed hired but he engaged in work for them (and to be clear, the work Jed Wallace does is hiring online bots to astroturf, that's his business) and that they attributed positive results to it. If Wallace is deposed and communications between the PR folks, Baldoni, and Wallace discovered that detail this arrangement, it's going to be very hard for Baldoni to defend against the retaliation side.

I know he's arguing that she was torpedoing her reputation on her own but I don't know that this defense would work if he definitely engaged Wallace and the astroturfing happened. Especially if they can perhaps pull records of Wallace's "bots" and link them directly to actual posts that got traction on Reddit and elsewhere. I also think this would be especially bad for Baldoni from a PR perspective because I anticipate that the actual posts Wallace's team put ups are pretty bad.

I'm super curious about this part of the case in part because I'm genuinely curious as to whether DCUM was astroturfed (would be surprised but who knows) or if some astroturfed comments from Reddit or elsewhere wound up here. I am not a Lively fan and absolutely participated in the pile on against her on this site back in August. So it's personal to me -- were my feelings organic or was I buying into an online narrative? Did I get had? I know I'm not the only person who had these thoughts when Lively's complaint first came out![/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