Why did the New York Times publish that Justin Baldoni hit piece?

Honestly, I think it’s because the liberal media has long been intertwined with Hollywood, and they weren’t prepared for someone like Justin Baldoni to fight back. He’s a “male feminist” poster boy, which made the story juicy for the NYT especially since calling out hypocrisy sells. But what they didn’t expect was that he actually had the financial and legal backing to push back.

The media’s used to going after powerful men who are unprepared for the fallout. They didn’t anticipate Baldoni wouldn’t roll over, and that’s where this all backfired. When you have Megan Twohey who helped take down Weinstein—attached to the article, it gives the story automatic credibility, even if the actual evidence is paper thin. It almost feels like they thought the headline alone would be enough to destroy him.

If anything, this shows how dangerous it is when outlets prioritize agenda or clicks over proof. And in this case, it looks like they underestimated the wrong person.

It was likely more advantageous to the NY Times' future celeb/entertainment coverage to cozy up to Blake and Ryan, who were much more famous and powerful than Justin. Ryan was still riding high on the success of "Deadpool and Wolverine," along with his various business ventures. Justin was a nobody director whose only major acting role was on a forgettable drama. Pushing the narrative that he was creepy would have been easy, since he didn't have much of a public image.

But the NY Times likely didn't know just how flimsy Blake's case was when they decided to go with the story. Justin fought back harder than expected and showed receipts -- that embarrassing text Blake sent referencing Game of Thrones was likely the kill shot for turning public opinion in Justin's favor.

The paper of record isn't immune to chasing clicks at the expense of credibility in 2025.

They didn't account for the fact that Blake Lively is such an irritating, unlikable piece of shit.

NYT has been adding lawyers to their defense team even though the case is on pause because they asked for time to prepare for a motion to dismiss. Either they're having a hard time coming up with a convincing argument for dismissal, or they know they're in trouble.

I hope Baldoni gets every last penny of that $250 million.

because Justin and that blond are equally matched in fuckedup behaviors

R5 What fucked up behavior has Justin displayed? That's a serious question, because I've yet to see any evidence or established fact that suggests he ever did anything wrong.

The NYT is bought and paid for. What they did during the Iraq war and the 2016 election speaks volumes. They’re a tab rag.

R6, he has a penis. That’s what they can’t stand.

Wtf. Evidence. Its all accusations. HEARSAY.

R9 "Phony" is always a dead giveaway that you have nothing on someone you want to hate.

fake, two-faced, yes. accusations and heresay, not evidence.

There's nothing else going on in the world that the NYT might write about? Nothing at all?

a welcome distraction, mok. things are grim in this fucking country right now

Oh, I know, R13, but they're both cunts so it's not a super great distraction.

Cunts cunts everywhere, and not a drop to drink. Or something. ;)

R14 Nah, Blake is the cunt. Justin is an easy guy to root for, and watching him bury Blake with receipts has been fun as hell.

Is it just one person who is writing all these misogynistic posts attacking Blake Lively? Please let me know so I can block them.

R16 Tell your boss to come up with something other than misogyny. Nobody's buying what she's selling, hair products or otherwise. She and her goons have set women's causes back at least a decade at this point.

Because what they printed wasn't untrue, OP

Goliath cunt vs David cunt

[quote] Why did the New York Times publish that Justin Baldoni hit piece?

Legacy/corporate media is dead, and they need clickbait. E.g. CNN/Jake Tapper's new book, ABC/Terry Moran suspension, Washington Post/Trump-positive stories

Anyone calling Justin Baldoni a creep after reading the lawsuit and the website just hates men.

Some women despise men and raise and mold psychopaths (yes mothers are accountable for the raising of their sons) but he’s not one of them.

r21 Go back to your podcasts, incel.

R22 Proving my point

I told you all why NYT published, when I read the article. The NYT wanted a new "Bad Art Friend", a juicy gossipy celebrity story. I think news editors were not involved in the OK to publish. Ridiculous ungrounded lifestyle and arts and entertainment editors gave the OK.

And if there is no fact checking and no real reporting, I hope the NYT fries. Fucking cunts.

[quote]Some women despise men and raise and mold psychopaths (yes mothers are accountable for the raising of their sons)

Oh no, this isn't about misogyny at all, absolutely not.

[QUOTE][R22] Proving my point

How did r22 prove that

[QUOTE]Some women despise men and raise and mold psychopaths

?

This is nothing. NYT had no problem acting as a personal handmaiden for the Bush Administration's indefensible march to war with Iraq. NYT will never be anything but a handmaiden to the elite until they get rid of nepo Sulzberger.

It’s not misogyny it’s about holding women accountable in society which rarely ever happens. Most serial killers and psychopaths had crazy or neglectful mothers.

Now tell us about their fathers.

[quote]when outlets prioritize agenda or clicks over proof.

I see so many outlets "writing for clicks" now, even formerly respectable ones.

R30 We know about them. Absent fathers are a problem so much they legally bind them through child support. But we know men are horrible and fucked up. We don’t talk about women doing it which is why you’re deflecting to men, as in any conversations about women being assholes. No accountability.

Blake is just the front for this. If you read the filings, Ryan was right up in there trying to steal the prospective franchise from Justin along with Blake. It was his MO for Deadpool. She's known to be a bitch on set, but she's no mastermind. They're both sociopaths, though, and I hope they get everything coming for them.

“ until they get rid of nepo Sulzberger.”

lol

[QUOTE]We don’t talk about women doing it which is why you’re deflecting to men,

What?! You have got to be joking

The older history of psychological literature and "research" is rife with examples of "women doing it" and destroying sons. Google "schizophrenogenic mother" and you will see that a disease that's genetically transmitted and largely inevitable was blamed on mom's bad parenting (rejecting, over-controlling, sending mixed messages, protective to the point of infantilizing)

And homosexuality was also the mother's fault. Don't you remember this, at least, r32? They were too close, over indulgent, and cocooning of their little princes so much so that they created homosexuals. And, mind you, being gay was once considered a disease by both APAs.

So there you have it. Two of the worst diseases one could possibly have were considered to be caused by mothers. Who were the authors of these studies and case histories who developed these theories? Can you answer that, r32?

Also, how is this deflecting when fathers contribute 50% of offsprings' genetic endowment and are presumably responsible for them, as well?

TIA

"I THINK OF A MAN& TAKE AWAY REASON AND ACCOUNTABILITY."

Thank you, r35

Refiled within 10 days-Bryan Freedman& the Billionaire Sarowitz will get a new judge too.

My $$$ is on Freedman and Sarowitz

I've been waiting for this Judge to do something stupid like this.

We can only hope so Phillywhore/r39.

If anyone can refile& come back attacking, it is Bryan Freedman. He is THAT GOOD at his job.

Defamation is "HARD" to prove against a newspaper; I don't believe the judge understood the case against the NYT.

The judge in this case should have recused, his brother is in the entertainment business- tied to Ryan Reynolds-Bitch Lively.

Not a good look, but who knows!!

[quote] [R30] We know about them. Absent fathers are a problem so much they legally bind them through child support. But we know men are horrible and fucked up. We don’t talk about women doing it which is why you’re deflecting to men, as in any conversations about women being assholes. No accountability

Oh brother, nothing like pop psychology spouted by a screeching bottom who is more of a frau then any woman could hope to be.

Psychopaths are created when genetics comingle in a way that results in a bad combination. Usually starting with crazy parents but even normal people can create monsters through genetics alone.

This has nothing to do with "women bad, man good". It's about two powerful people (Blake and Ryan) trying to steamroll what they thought was a weak, B list actor.

Judge just dismissed Baldoni's suit againt the NYT and Lively.

Because the Kansas City Chiefs won the Super Bowl, and "Team Taylor Swift" held more sway than Justin Baldoni.

You're welcome, r37. It's both annoying and amusing when people who have a bag full of resentments claim expertise and say dumb things not based on knowledge or empiricism. A quintessentially Trumpian tactic.