Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are like 3 pro Baldoni posters on this board who have convinced themselves that Lively is the antichrist and they won’t hear evidence to contradict that. I’m sure there are posters elsewhere like this, but the general public hasn’t yet made up their minds and likely won’t until trial, so insisting they are “done” and need to settle right away is crazy. If they have convincing evidence of a smear, imho, they win and Baldoni does not recover. And if Baldoni ordered the smear, he shouldn’t be settled with.

If you listen closely to what Blake’s lawyers have said, a few things become really clear:

“The core of this lawsuit is the smear campaign” means we know we can’t prove harassment and don’t even believe it ourselves.

“We’re hoping to focus on the smear campaign in discovery” means we don’t have any evidence yet but are hoping to find some on our fishing expedition.

“The conversation as described didn’t happen” means we definitely threatened Taylor Swift but we were careful with our words, as we are lawyers after all.

I’m one of the Baldoni supporters who thinks Blake won’t settle, but not because she shouldn’t, but because she can’t afford it. She’ll take her chances at least until after the MTDs are ruled on but the problem is today’s price is not tomorrow’s price, so if the MTDs don’t go how she wants it’ll cost her more in settlement discussions.

Well, I would certainly not expect serious settlement discussions until Wayfarer turns over the financials.

Why? Jury damages are rarely tied to real world financials

The 400 million is a huge number and totally speculative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to review: the NYT is trash, not to be trusted. But Perez Hilton and the Daily Mail are infallible.

Go JB! xoxo

Well let’s take inventory. The NYT ran the Baldoni hit piece with the sham subpoena as cover. The Daily Mail did actual investigative journalism exposing the sham subpoena. The NYT still hasn’t reported on the sham subpoena and probably won’t. The Daily Fail may be a tabloid, but even a broke clock is right twice a day.

And to prove how fake this was from the get-go and how it's standard operating procedure at The Times, that hack Megan Twohey is not only not fired, she'll be promoted and/or rewarded with a windfall from Hollywood for being a good foot soldier.

It's also worth noting Twohey is from Washington and is a GU alum. It's not out of the question she is on her personally spinning.

No. She will be mocked and judged by other NYT reporters for messing this stupid non-story up and being blinded into thinking she’s a celebrity insider and friends/confidants with the Blakes of the world.

Totally agree with you. The pp is being nuts. The journalist will be disgraced. I feel bad for her. She was duped

Disgraced? Y'all are naive as hell. Is Jake Tapper disgraced running point for senile Biden? He’s still paid millions a year, still an CNN star, and was just given a multi-million book deal detailing he knew all along Biden was losing his mind (in contrast to his actual coverage on CNN!).

Twohey has not and will not be fired. She will become a multi-millionaire, if she isn’t already, off a career peddling bullshit.

You clearly don’t understand this world. It’s fine. I’m not saying she’ll be fired but she will be put on ice and this will be a major hit to her credibility. She’s not going to become a ‘multi millionaire’ off this. I don’t think you understand News or journalism at all.

+1 that some PPs do not understand this world. Becoming a fake entertainer journalist like Tapper or any of the other CNN etc types could bring her millions, sure. And if that’s her goal, it could happen. But she will never be a respected reporter again and yes, among a certain set, that is something that money can’t buy. Becoming a respected investigative reporter at the NYT, New Yorker, maybe ProPublica - you’ll notice i’m not listing cable news anchor positions here - is all about reputation and the quality of the work, and it is something that Tapper and his ilk can’t buy. Maybe they don’t want it anyway, but among people who do want it or care about these things, it is very hard to achieve. Of course it is gatekeeping, but I’m telling you how it works. Blowing it on Blake Lively was a total waste and disappointing. She can’t get that reputation prestige back. And it reflects poorly on NYT editors and leadership for allowing it to happen, at a time when the paper was already diminished. She has colleagues who are furious about this, I assure you, because the NYT brand erosion also undermines them.

Jake tapper was an anchor for years. Megan is a long time journalist and 50 yo. She’s not suddenly going to pivot to a multi million dollar anchor job and book deals- she’s too old, that’s not really her skill set and you don’t just get handed book huge book deals after a failed piece that will likely cause her employer boat loads of money in legal fees. She got her book deal after Weinstein and I doubt there are any more coming.

Blake has essentially ruined Megan’s career. I still can’t quite figure out what she, her editors and others at NYT let this piece go through. It was essentially a single source piece (sure, w the cover of the filing) with *multiple* potential defamation plaintiffs, and they gave the subjects less than 24 hours to respond. Daily Mail would have gone for comment earlier imo. Why didn’t the times? It’s unfathomable to me.

What in the hell kind of disinformation gaslighting is this? Nepo baby Twohey has already cashed in and become a Hollywood foot soldier:

“Twohey and Kantor authored a book which chronicled their exposé into Weinstein and the structures of power that enabled him, titled She Said: Breaking the Sexual Harassment Story that Helped Ignite a Movement, which was published by Penguin Books in September 2019.[33] In 2022, the book was adapted into a film of the same name. The film is directed by Maria Schrader from a screenplay by Rebecca Lenkiewicz. Twohey is played by Carey Mulligan.”

Yes, as I said she got her book deal from Weinstein but that’s probably the end for her. And I think you a little confused about just how much book deals make in this day and age, including adaptation rights. I’m sure she made a decent amount and I’m sure you’ll find some extreme example of someone making $$$, but the fact is it’s rare to become super wealthy if you’re an investigative journalist.

Her dad was a journalist in Chicago. I can’t remember what her mom did. But she’s hardly a nepo baby. She worked for what she became.

You seem to have great personal animosity for her. It’s a bit odd.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are like 3 pro Baldoni posters on this board who have convinced themselves that Lively is the antichrist and they won’t hear evidence to contradict that. I’m sure there are posters elsewhere like this, but the general public hasn’t yet made up their minds and likely won’t until trial, so insisting they are “done” and need to settle right away is crazy. If they have convincing evidence of a smear, imho, they win and Baldoni does not recover. And if Baldoni ordered the smear, he shouldn’t be settled with.

If you listen closely to what Blake’s lawyers have said, a few things become really clear:

“The core of this lawsuit is the smear campaign” means we know we can’t prove harassment and don’t even believe it ourselves.

“We’re hoping to focus on the smear campaign in discovery” means we don’t have any evidence yet but are hoping to find some on our fishing expedition.

“The conversation as described didn’t happen” means we definitely threatened Taylor Swift but we were careful with our words, as we are lawyers after all.

I’m one of the Baldoni supporters who thinks Blake won’t settle, but not because she shouldn’t, but because she can’t afford it. She’ll take her chances at least until after the MTDs are ruled on but the problem is today’s price is not tomorrow’s price, so if the MTDs don’t go how she wants it’ll cost her more in settlement discussions.

Well, I would certainly not expect serious settlement discussions until Wayfarer turns over the financials.

Why? Jury damages are rarely tied to real world financials

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are like 3 pro Baldoni posters on this board who have convinced themselves that Lively is the antichrist and they won’t hear evidence to contradict that. I’m sure there are posters elsewhere like this, but the general public hasn’t yet made up their minds and likely won’t until trial, so insisting they are “done” and need to settle right away is crazy. If they have convincing evidence of a smear, imho, they win and Baldoni does not recover. And if Baldoni ordered the smear, he shouldn’t be settled with.

If you listen closely to what Blake’s lawyers have said, a few things become really clear:

“The core of this lawsuit is the smear campaign” means we know we can’t prove harassment and don’t even believe it ourselves.

“We’re hoping to focus on the smear campaign in discovery” means we don’t have any evidence yet but are hoping to find some on our fishing expedition.

“The conversation as described didn’t happen” means we definitely threatened Taylor Swift but we were careful with our words, as we are lawyers after all.

I’m one of the Baldoni supporters who thinks Blake won’t settle, but not because she shouldn’t, but because she can’t afford it. She’ll take her chances at least until after the MTDs are ruled on but the problem is today’s price is not tomorrow’s price, so if the MTDs don’t go how she wants it’ll cost her more in settlement discussions.

Well, I would certainly not expect serious settlement discussions until Wayfarer turns over the financials.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are like 3 pro Baldoni posters on this board who have convinced themselves that Lively is the antichrist and they won’t hear evidence to contradict that. I’m sure there are posters elsewhere like this, but the general public hasn’t yet made up their minds and likely won’t until trial, so insisting they are “done” and need to settle right away is crazy. If they have convincing evidence of a smear, imho, they win and Baldoni does not recover. And if Baldoni ordered the smear, he shouldn’t be settled with.

This is spot on. This thread is delusional.

OK when are they going to show us evidence of a smear? What I see is Blake and Ryan took over Baldoni's film, threatened him, and kicked him out of his own premiere. Then Blake threatened to release Taylor Swift's text messages. These two are burning bridges left and right. They are not victims. I cannot believe that no one realizes how bad it looks threatening to release stuff from Swift. Blake and Ryan are bullies in their own right.

At the trial?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to review: the NYT is trash, not to be trusted. But Perez Hilton and the Daily Mail are infallible.

Go JB! xoxo

Well let’s take inventory. The NYT ran the Baldoni hit piece with the sham subpoena as cover. The Daily Mail did actual investigative journalism exposing the sham subpoena. The NYT still hasn’t reported on the sham subpoena and probably won’t. The Daily Fail may be a tabloid, but even a broke clock is right twice a day.

And to prove how fake this was from the get-go and how it's standard operating procedure at The Times, that hack Megan Twohey is not only not fired, she'll be promoted and/or rewarded with a windfall from Hollywood for being a good foot soldier.

It's also worth noting Twohey is from Washington and is a GU alum. It's not out of the question she is on her personally spinning.

No. She will be mocked and judged by other NYT reporters for messing this stupid non-story up and being blinded into thinking she’s a celebrity insider and friends/confidants with the Blakes of the world.

Totally agree with you. The pp is being nuts. The journalist will be disgraced. I feel bad for her. She was duped

Disgraced? Y'all are naive as hell. Is Jake Tapper disgraced running point for senile Biden? He’s still paid millions a year, still an CNN star, and was just given a multi-million book deal detailing he knew all along Biden was losing his mind (in contrast to his actual coverage on CNN!).

Twohey has not and will not be fired. She will become a multi-millionaire, if she isn’t already, off a career peddling bullshit.

You clearly don’t understand this world. It’s fine. I’m not saying she’ll be fired but she will be put on ice and this will be a major hit to her credibility. She’s not going to become a ‘multi millionaire’ off this. I don’t think you understand News or journalism at all.

+1 that some PPs do not understand this world. Becoming a fake entertainer journalist like Tapper or any of the other CNN etc types could bring her millions, sure. And if that’s her goal, it could happen. But she will never be a respected reporter again and yes, among a certain set, that is something that money can’t buy. Becoming a respected investigative reporter at the NYT, New Yorker, maybe ProPublica - you’ll notice i’m not listing cable news anchor positions here - is all about reputation and the quality of the work, and it is something that Tapper and his ilk can’t buy. Maybe they don’t want it anyway, but among people who do want it or care about these things, it is very hard to achieve. Of course it is gatekeeping, but I’m telling you how it works. Blowing it on Blake Lively was a total waste and disappointing. She can’t get that reputation prestige back. And it reflects poorly on NYT editors and leadership for allowing it to happen, at a time when the paper was already diminished. She has colleagues who are furious about this, I assure you, because the NYT brand erosion also undermines them.

Jake tapper was an anchor for years. Megan is a long time journalist and 50 yo. She’s not suddenly going to pivot to a multi million dollar anchor job and book deals- she’s too old, that’s not really her skill set and you don’t just get handed book huge book deals after a failed piece that will likely cause her employer boat loads of money in legal fees. She got her book deal after Weinstein and I doubt there are any more coming.

Blake has essentially ruined Megan’s career. I still can’t quite figure out what she, her editors and others at NYT let this piece go through. It was essentially a single source piece (sure, w the cover of the filing) with *multiple* potential defamation plaintiffs, and they gave the subjects less than 24 hours to respond. Daily Mail would have gone for comment earlier imo. Why didn’t the times? It’s unfathomable to me.

+1
Though I would say that Meghan and the NYT editors severely damaged their own careers, not Blake Lively. Blake Lively's people figured out that Meghan was an easy mark for placing this story and ... it worked. Depressing.

Well, they trusted their source. Sucks. I blame lively, but yes, they had a part too.

Defamation wise they're fine, but journalistically I'm surprised Megan didn't at least try to interview some cast and crew about the set, if she didn't want to go to Baldoni directly. That much is on her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are like 3 pro Baldoni posters on this board who have convinced themselves that Lively is the antichrist and they won’t hear evidence to contradict that. I’m sure there are posters elsewhere like this, but the general public hasn’t yet made up their minds and likely won’t until trial, so insisting they are “done” and need to settle right away is crazy. If they have convincing evidence of a smear, imho, they win and Baldoni does not recover. And if Baldoni ordered the smear, he shouldn’t be settled with.

If you listen closely to what Blake’s lawyers have said, a few things become really clear:

“The core of this lawsuit is the smear campaign” means we know we can’t prove harassment and don’t even believe it ourselves.

“We’re hoping to focus on the smear campaign in discovery” means we don’t have any evidence yet but are hoping to find some on our fishing expedition.

“The conversation as described didn’t happen” means we definitely threatened Taylor Swift but we were careful with our words, as we are lawyers after all.

I’m one of the Baldoni supporters who thinks Blake won’t settle, but not because she shouldn’t, but because she can’t afford it. She’ll take her chances at least until after the MTDs are ruled on but the problem is today’s price is not tomorrow’s price, so if the MTDs don’t go how she wants it’ll cost her more in settlement discussions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are like 3 pro Baldoni posters on this board who have convinced themselves that Lively is the antichrist and they won’t hear evidence to contradict that. I’m sure there are posters elsewhere like this, but the general public hasn’t yet made up their minds and likely won’t until trial, so insisting they are “done” and need to settle right away is crazy. If they have convincing evidence of a smear, imho, they win and Baldoni does not recover. And if Baldoni ordered the smear, he shouldn’t be settled with.

This is spot on. This thread is delusional.

OK when are they going to show us evidence of a smear? What I see is Blake and Ryan took over Baldoni's film, threatened him, and kicked him out of his own premiere. Then Blake threatened to release Taylor Swift's text messages. These two are burning bridges left and right. They are not victims. I cannot believe that no one realizes how bad it looks threatening to release stuff from Swift. Blake and Ryan are bullies in their own right.

At the trial?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to review: the NYT is trash, not to be trusted. But Perez Hilton and the Daily Mail are infallible.

Go JB! xoxo

Well let’s take inventory. The NYT ran the Baldoni hit piece with the sham subpoena as cover. The Daily Mail did actual investigative journalism exposing the sham subpoena. The NYT still hasn’t reported on the sham subpoena and probably won’t. The Daily Fail may be a tabloid, but even a broke clock is right twice a day.

And to prove how fake this was from the get-go and how it's standard operating procedure at The Times, that hack Megan Twohey is not only not fired, she'll be promoted and/or rewarded with a windfall from Hollywood for being a good foot soldier.

It's also worth noting Twohey is from Washington and is a GU alum. It's not out of the question she is on her personally spinning.

No. She will be mocked and judged by other NYT reporters for messing this stupid non-story up and being blinded into thinking she’s a celebrity insider and friends/confidants with the Blakes of the world.

Totally agree with you. The pp is being nuts. The journalist will be disgraced. I feel bad for her. She was duped

Disgraced? Y'all are naive as hell. Is Jake Tapper disgraced running point for senile Biden? He’s still paid millions a year, still an CNN star, and was just given a multi-million book deal detailing he knew all along Biden was losing his mind (in contrast to his actual coverage on CNN!).

Twohey has not and will not be fired. She will become a multi-millionaire, if she isn’t already, off a career peddling bullshit.

You clearly don’t understand this world. It’s fine. I’m not saying she’ll be fired but she will be put on ice and this will be a major hit to her credibility. She’s not going to become a ‘multi millionaire’ off this. I don’t think you understand News or journalism at all.

+1 that some PPs do not understand this world. Becoming a fake entertainer journalist like Tapper or any of the other CNN etc types could bring her millions, sure. And if that’s her goal, it could happen. But she will never be a respected reporter again and yes, among a certain set, that is something that money can’t buy. Becoming a respected investigative reporter at the NYT, New Yorker, maybe ProPublica - you’ll notice i’m not listing cable news anchor positions here - is all about reputation and the quality of the work, and it is something that Tapper and his ilk can’t buy. Maybe they don’t want it anyway, but among people who do want it or care about these things, it is very hard to achieve. Of course it is gatekeeping, but I’m telling you how it works. Blowing it on Blake Lively was a total waste and disappointing. She can’t get that reputation prestige back. And it reflects poorly on NYT editors and leadership for allowing it to happen, at a time when the paper was already diminished. She has colleagues who are furious about this, I assure you, because the NYT brand erosion also undermines them.

Jake tapper was an anchor for years. Megan is a long time journalist and 50 yo. She’s not suddenly going to pivot to a multi million dollar anchor job and book deals- she’s too old, that’s not really her skill set and you don’t just get handed book huge book deals after a failed piece that will likely cause her employer boat loads of money in legal fees. She got her book deal after Weinstein and I doubt there are any more coming.

Blake has essentially ruined Megan’s career. I still can’t quite figure out what she, her editors and others at NYT let this piece go through. It was essentially a single source piece (sure, w the cover of the filing) with *multiple* potential defamation plaintiffs, and they gave the subjects less than 24 hours to respond. Daily Mail would have gone for comment earlier imo. Why didn’t the times? It’s unfathomable to me.

+1
Though I would say that Meghan and the NYT editors severely damaged their own careers, not Blake Lively. Blake Lively's people figured out that Meghan was an easy mark for placing this story and ... it worked. Depressing.

Well, they trusted their source. Sucks. I blame lively, but yes, they had a part too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to review: the NYT is trash, not to be trusted. But Perez Hilton and the Daily Mail are infallible.

Go JB! xoxo

Well let’s take inventory. The NYT ran the Baldoni hit piece with the sham subpoena as cover. The Daily Mail did actual investigative journalism exposing the sham subpoena. The NYT still hasn’t reported on the sham subpoena and probably won’t. The Daily Fail may be a tabloid, but even a broke clock is right twice a day.

And to prove how fake this was from the get-go and how it's standard operating procedure at The Times, that hack Megan Twohey is not only not fired, she'll be promoted and/or rewarded with a windfall from Hollywood for being a good foot soldier.

It's also worth noting Twohey is from Washington and is a GU alum. It's not out of the question she is on her personally spinning.

No. She will be mocked and judged by other NYT reporters for messing this stupid non-story up and being blinded into thinking she’s a celebrity insider and friends/confidants with the Blakes of the world.

Totally agree with you. The pp is being nuts. The journalist will be disgraced. I feel bad for her. She was duped

Disgraced? Y'all are naive as hell. Is Jake Tapper disgraced running point for senile Biden? He’s still paid millions a year, still an CNN star, and was just given a multi-million book deal detailing he knew all along Biden was losing his mind (in contrast to his actual coverage on CNN!).

Twohey has not and will not be fired. She will become a multi-millionaire, if she isn’t already, off a career peddling bullshit.

You clearly don’t understand this world. It’s fine. I’m not saying she’ll be fired but she will be put on ice and this will be a major hit to her credibility. She’s not going to become a ‘multi millionaire’ off this. I don’t think you understand News or journalism at all.

+1 that some PPs do not understand this world. Becoming a fake entertainer journalist like Tapper or any of the other CNN etc types could bring her millions, sure. And if that’s her goal, it could happen. But she will never be a respected reporter again and yes, among a certain set, that is something that money can’t buy. Becoming a respected investigative reporter at the NYT, New Yorker, maybe ProPublica - you’ll notice i’m not listing cable news anchor positions here - is all about reputation and the quality of the work, and it is something that Tapper and his ilk can’t buy. Maybe they don’t want it anyway, but among people who do want it or care about these things, it is very hard to achieve. Of course it is gatekeeping, but I’m telling you how it works. Blowing it on Blake Lively was a total waste and disappointing. She can’t get that reputation prestige back. And it reflects poorly on NYT editors and leadership for allowing it to happen, at a time when the paper was already diminished. She has colleagues who are furious about this, I assure you, because the NYT brand erosion also undermines them.

Jake tapper was an anchor for years. Megan is a long time journalist and 50 yo. She’s not suddenly going to pivot to a multi million dollar anchor job and book deals- she’s too old, that’s not really her skill set and you don’t just get handed book huge book deals after a failed piece that will likely cause her employer boat loads of money in legal fees. She got her book deal after Weinstein and I doubt there are any more coming.

Blake has essentially ruined Megan’s career. I still can’t quite figure out what she, her editors and others at NYT let this piece go through. It was essentially a single source piece (sure, w the cover of the filing) with *multiple* potential defamation plaintiffs, and they gave the subjects less than 24 hours to respond. Daily Mail would have gone for comment earlier imo. Why didn’t the times? It’s unfathomable to me.

What in the hell kind of disinformation gaslighting is this? Nepo baby Twohey has already cashed in and become a Hollywood foot soldier:

“Twohey and Kantor authored a book which chronicled their exposé into Weinstein and the structures of power that enabled him, titled She Said: Breaking the Sexual Harassment Story that Helped Ignite a Movement, which was published by Penguin Books in September 2019.[33] In 2022, the book was adapted into a film of the same name. The film is directed by Maria Schrader from a screenplay by Rebecca Lenkiewicz. Twohey is played by Carey Mulligan.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are like 3 pro Baldoni posters on this board who have convinced themselves that Lively is the antichrist and they won’t hear evidence to contradict that. I’m sure there are posters elsewhere like this, but the general public hasn’t yet made up their minds and likely won’t until trial, so insisting they are “done” and need to settle right away is crazy. If they have convincing evidence of a smear, imho, they win and Baldoni does not recover. And if Baldoni ordered the smear, he shouldn’t be settled with.

This is spot on. This thread is delusional.

OK when are they going to show us evidence of a smear? What I see is Blake and Ryan took over Baldoni's film, threatened him, and kicked him out of his own premiere. Then Blake threatened to release Taylor Swift's text messages. These two are burning bridges left and right. They are not victims. I cannot believe that no one realizes how bad it looks threatening to release stuff from Swift. Blake and Ryan are bullies in their own right.

Anonymous wrote:There are like 3 pro Baldoni posters on this board who have convinced themselves that Lively is the antichrist and they won’t hear evidence to contradict that. I’m sure there are posters elsewhere like this, but the general public hasn’t yet made up their minds and likely won’t until trial, so insisting they are “done” and need to settle right away is crazy. If they have convincing evidence of a smear, imho, they win and Baldoni does not recover. And if Baldoni ordered the smear, he shouldn’t be settled with.

Anonymous wrote:Ryan is very old in Hollywood acting terms, super hero movies are fading, and he was clearly the mastermind of this psychotic scheme. Neither should have careers after this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are like 3 pro Baldoni posters on this board who have convinced themselves that Lively is the antichrist and they won’t hear evidence to contradict that. I’m sure there are posters elsewhere like this, but the general public hasn’t yet made up their minds and likely won’t until trial, so insisting they are “done” and need to settle right away is crazy. If they have convincing evidence of a smear, imho, they win and Baldoni does not recover. And if Baldoni ordered the smear, he shouldn’t be settled with.

This is spot on. This thread is delusional.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to review: the NYT is trash, not to be trusted. But Perez Hilton and the Daily Mail are infallible.

Go JB! xoxo

Well let’s take inventory. The NYT ran the Baldoni hit piece with the sham subpoena as cover. The Daily Mail did actual investigative journalism exposing the sham subpoena. The NYT still hasn’t reported on the sham subpoena and probably won’t. The Daily Fail may be a tabloid, but even a broke clock is right twice a day.

And to prove how fake this was from the get-go and how it's standard operating procedure at The Times, that hack Megan Twohey is not only not fired, she'll be promoted and/or rewarded with a windfall from Hollywood for being a good foot soldier.

It's also worth noting Twohey is from Washington and is a GU alum. It's not out of the question she is on her personally spinning.

No. She will be mocked and judged by other NYT reporters for messing this stupid non-story up and being blinded into thinking she’s a celebrity insider and friends/confidants with the Blakes of the world.

Totally agree with you. The pp is being nuts. The journalist will be disgraced. I feel bad for her. She was duped

Disgraced? Y'all are naive as hell. Is Jake Tapper disgraced running point for senile Biden? He’s still paid millions a year, still an CNN star, and was just given a multi-million book deal detailing he knew all along Biden was losing his mind (in contrast to his actual coverage on CNN!).

Twohey has not and will not be fired. She will become a multi-millionaire, if she isn’t already, off a career peddling bullshit.

You clearly don’t understand this world. It’s fine. I’m not saying she’ll be fired but she will be put on ice and this will be a major hit to her credibility. She’s not going to become a ‘multi millionaire’ off this. I don’t think you understand News or journalism at all.

+1 that some PPs do not understand this world. Becoming a fake entertainer journalist like Tapper or any of the other CNN etc types could bring her millions, sure. And if that’s her goal, it could happen. But she will never be a respected reporter again and yes, among a certain set, that is something that money can’t buy. Becoming a respected investigative reporter at the NYT, New Yorker, maybe ProPublica - you’ll notice i’m not listing cable news anchor positions here - is all about reputation and the quality of the work, and it is something that Tapper and his ilk can’t buy. Maybe they don’t want it anyway, but among people who do want it or care about these things, it is very hard to achieve. Of course it is gatekeeping, but I’m telling you how it works. Blowing it on Blake Lively was a total waste and disappointing. She can’t get that reputation prestige back. And it reflects poorly on NYT editors and leadership for allowing it to happen, at a time when the paper was already diminished. She has colleagues who are furious about this, I assure you, because the NYT brand erosion also undermines them.

Jake tapper was an anchor for years. Megan is a long time journalist and 50 yo. She’s not suddenly going to pivot to a multi million dollar anchor job and book deals- she’s too old, that’s not really her skill set and you don’t just get handed book huge book deals after a failed piece that will likely cause her employer boat loads of money in legal fees. She got her book deal after Weinstein and I doubt there are any more coming.

Blake has essentially ruined Megan’s career. I still can’t quite figure out what she, her editors and others at NYT let this piece go through. It was essentially a single source piece (sure, w the cover of the filing) with *multiple* potential defamation plaintiffs, and they gave the subjects less than 24 hours to respond. Daily Mail would have gone for comment earlier imo. Why didn’t the times? It’s unfathomable to me.