Denton, Gamergate and now Blake Lively

The underlined parts are all very telling, it seems it would be quite hard for them to argue that they had nothing to do with the smear campaign, or that it wasn't one?

Indeed.

IIUC, their defence is that they did construct a smear campaign, but didn't use it because the public happened to come up with the PR companies' intended outcomes without any input from the PR companies, but instead based on... um, just the public's own imaginations about total strangers they'd never met...

Should have included the next message:

From: Melissa Nathan
To: Jennifer Abel (owner)
She's ready when we are.
Priority: Normal 04/08/2024 21:40:27(UTC+0)

From a few articles, but mainly the NY Times one:

Another back and forth on August 2 appears to show Nathan joking about murdering Lively.
'I also sent you a present. Don't worry, I didn't kill her and send her in a box to your house. It's a congratulations present,' the message from Nathan reads, to which Abel responds: 'DAMNIT'.

--

'Ms. Nathan had already been speaking to other journalists, according to text messages.
When Ms. Abel wrote to her Aug. 4 that “I’m having reckless thoughts of wanting to plant pieces this week of how horrible Blake is to work with. Just to get ahead of it,” Ms. Nathan replied that she had spoken off the record to an editor at The Daily Mail.

“She’s ready when we are,” Ms. Nathan wrote.'

--

“We are crushing it on Reddit,” Mr. Wallace told Ms. Nathan, according to a text she sent Ms. Abel on Aug. 9.
The next day, one of Ms. Nathan’s employees texted, “We’ve started to see shift on social, due largely to Jed and his team’s efforts to shift the narrative.

--

'When a TikTok sleuth started asking questions about Mr. Baldoni, Ms. Abel texted that “this girl is on a very dangerous crusade.”

“We’ve flagged to Jed and his team for more serious action on the social side,” she wrote.

'Other times he (Baldoni) appears to vacillate, seeking assurances about the tactics being deployed. When he notices a tabloid article critical of Ms. Lively, he sends a worried text: “How can we say somehow that we are not doing any of this — it looks like we are trying to take her down.” On another occasion, he wondered whether they were deploying fake “bot” accounts on social media.

“I can fully fully confirm we do not have bots,” Ms. Nathan wrote, adding that any digital team would be too intelligent to “utilise something so obvious.”
Mr. Wallace’s operation, she wrote, “is doing something very specific in terms of what they do. I know Jamey & Jed connected on this.”

Then there are the messages between Ms Abel and Ms Nathan, praising each other for their 'amazing work':

Ms Abel: ''The narrative online is so freaking good and fans are still sticking up for Justin and there literally has been no pickup of those two articles which is actually shocking to me. But I see this as a total success, as does Justin. You did such amazing work''

Ms Nathan: Narrative is CRAZY good. So did you.

On Aug. 16, Ms. Nathan shared the Daily Mail article headlined “Is Blake Lively set to be CANCELLED?” with references to ‘hard to watch’ videos and a ‘tone deaf’ promotional Q. and A.
“Wow. You really outdid yourself with this piece,” Ms. Abel responded.
“That’s why you hired me right?” Ms. Nathan replied. “I’m the best.”

The underlined parts are all very telling, it seems it would be quite hard for them to argue that they had nothing to do with the smear campaign, or that it wasn't one?

The thing is, how are we to learn the truth in the face of serious misinformation generated by PR and influence agencies, except through reporting in the media?

In many cases the same media which has been propagating the misinformation. Mea culpas like the one from Laura Snapes are quite rare. I think I've only seen one other about this.

I'd be extremely surprised if the Daily Mail did a mea culpa, or an article illuminating their editor's personal friendship with Nathan. How can they?

And I think I've answered my own question from above. Page 37 §120 has a message exchange including:

From: Melissa Nathan
To: Jennifer Abel (owner)
Am I already off the records Spoke to the editor Daily Mail because she's my friend.
Priority: Normal 04/08/2024 21:40:22(UTC+0)

In the media I am seeing claims of "people made up their minds organically" as some sort of get out for Baldoni.

What @ouchwtf reports as having observed is the opposite of organic: these captions are instructing people what to think and feel when the content doesn't appear to warrant it. That Daily Mail headline cited appears to be doing the same [caveat that I haven't read the article].

If consumers of this messaging then choose to post more of the same without being ordered to do so, that doesn't somehow mean it's not a manufactured outcome. Herding people when they don't realise they're being herded is quite as deliberate by the PR as giving people a script and ordering them about.

This article is pretty much what goes through my head every time a “feminist ally” posts on LinkedIn.

Feminist ally? Self aggrandising grifting tossers more like.

Page 51:

169. Additionally, on August 15, 2024, Mr. Baldoni texted Ms. Nathan and Ms. Abel, stating that his business partner, Mr. Sarowitz, suggested "flipping the narrative” arising from unnamed sources who had made false claims about Mr. Reynolds' involvement in the script of the Film, and suggested ways to manipulate those rumors to make Mr. Reynolds appear to be anti- feminist. There was no truth to these claims.

[shots of email exchange]

From: Justin Baldoni
To: Melissa Nathan
To: Jennifer Abel ( owner)
No worries -
Quickly
My partner Steve asked about flipping the narrative from this leak this am about ryan saying script was a disaster and he saved the movie -
Priority: Normal 15/08/2024 17:58:26 (UTC+0)

From: Justin Baldoni
To: Melissa Nathan
To: Jennifer Abel (owner)
To- something about ryan claiming the female hired was feminist writer didn't know how to tackle a female film etc
Using their own words against them -
Priority: Normal 15/08/2024 17:59:16(UTC+0)

170. Ms. Nathan assured Mr. Baldoni that “ [ t]his is an easy flip, ” before indicating that she was already working on a story for Variety that would achieve this goal.

The description of what she had to put up with when filming the birth scene is awful.

Likewise the complaints about her weight. The weaponisation of Baldoni's "welfare" as justification for ringing her personal trainer, without her knowledge, to find out how much she weighed, under the guise of wanting to protect his back when lifting her - when there was no such scene ever scheduled for filming. And it's treated as acceptable because he's entitled to care about his own health and he's a feminist ally so he can't possibly have any ulterior motives.

I remember the feeling when it became clear that ‘the internet’ had turned on Blake Lively, with absolutely no clear reason. It was bizarre and quite confusing. I don’t read much sleb gossipy stuff, but the stuff that I did see had this feeling of, hang on, what am I missing here?

Makes total sense in hindsight that of course it was PR manoeuvres against her.

Agree. That was my reaction.

A “scenario planning” document by Nathan’s firm, TAG PR, said it could “explore planting stories about the weaponisation of feminism and how people in [Lively’s] circle like Taylor Swift have been accused of utilising these tactics to ‘bully’ into getting what they want.”…

I read that line in the article and immediately thought of the cases of information

emerging about unsavoury or illegal behaviour by celebrities, and then the threads on here with the same or very similar phrases being used in their defence by multiple posters.

Seeing those threads has always made me wonder whether reputation management companies have people on retainer who they pay to post on social media when one of their clients rubs into difficulties.

Aargh! Pre-emptive! Flipping autocorrect is prob controlled by Melissa Nathan etc at this point.

Yes I noticed this too! Like, ‘huh, I don’t really know her but I thought everyone loved her, why is everyone suddenly hating her and angry about her shampoo line?!’

Also, she may or may not be ‘nice’. It has no effect on her right to go to work post partum without being harassed, objectified and then completely eviscerated by a ‘pre-emotive’ PR reputation destruction exercise.

Another question would be, in §23, Nathan appears to be proudly claiming responsibility for the Daily Mail article entitled:

"String of hard to watch' videos that have surfacedfollowing 'tone deaf' Q&A to promote It Ends With Us could tarnish 36-year-old star's golden Hollywood image for good”
subtitled:
• Awkward encounters between Lively, who shares four children with Ryan
Reynolds, and journalists in recent years are being shared across social media
• READ MORE: Justin Baldoni addresses 'friction' on set of It Ends With Us
by Alanah Kholsa and Jo Tweedy for MailOnline.

I would be interested to know whether it would it be typical for the journalists to have a degree of knowledge of and be knowingly colluding with Nathan's objectives of trashing person A to protect person B?

Or would the journalists typically be unwitting victims of Nathan's actions?

Or is it such a mixed bag it would be impossible to say?

I don’t particularly follow Blake Lively or know much about her, but have been noticing for months weird bitchy posts and reels about her on instagram. There’s one where a reporter gives her a gift (like a broach or something) and she politely and warmly says thank you, she’ll wear it later as it doesn’t quite match her red carpet dress. The captions are always about her being a mean girl and known for being a cow to people. But there’s never anything of substance presented. I’ve always seen them and thought huh, weird, she seems fine.

Was this all part of the smear campaign they’ve been running then? Seems so eh? She’s been very brave and it’s great to have a spotlight on how people with resources actively try to discredit accusers in this very sinister way.

The texts forming the evidence in Lively's suit were obtained via subpoena. Regardless of whether people like her or not, she has the right to work without being subjected to sexual harassment - and then subjected to a targeted smear campaign for following the HR process and raising a complaint.

This case is illuminating for two reasons - firstly, the level of manipulation that PR agencies will apply to social media sites and small press outlets in the hope of seeding a story that later goes viral.

Secondly, the number of people who seem to think that as Lively was rude to a journalist, and has a reputation for being "difficult", it somehow undermines her credibility when making a complaint. The trope of the perfect victim appears to be alive and kicking.

Some of us are very interested in learning what happens in the PR world, and details of how it uses social media to manipulate people – particularly journalists, so that the journalists in turn amplify the stories.

From your post, it sounds like this may be a topic you are know quite a bit about, @Aspargar ?

If so, one thing I'd be interested in knowing more about is how the social media astroturfers are recruited and managed?

(Re §18:
subcontractors, including a Texas-based contractor named Jed Wallace, who weaponized a digital army around the country from New York to Los Angeles to create, seed, and promote content that appeared to be authentic on social media platforms and internet chat forums. )

Feels like everyone is jumping to conclusions, just like they did around the time of the film premiere.

The texts released were talking about implementing a smear campaign, which while shocking to some, is what happens in the Hollywood PR world. However, what we don’t have evidence of yet, is how and if it was implemented. So far, those accused have come forward to say any discussion didn’t have an impact on BLs reputation, because nothing was carried out as part of a smear campaign. They are alleging their work was made redundant by the internet alight with stories about BL and her past behaviour.

My point is, let wait to see if there’s any trial. Unlikely, because these suits are designed to be settled out of court. The point of it is to restore BLs reputation. Please also keep in mind RR has a marketing company (not strictly PR) but will be aware how to sell an image and thus rehabilitate one.

This case, regardless of what did or did not happen (and we won’t know because it will be settled) is unlikely to restore BL reputation because much of the internet chatter was about her past conduct in interviews. Not related to her time on the film or her working relationships while filming.

Certainly JB reputation is in tatters and I can’t see that changing, but it doesn’t alter BLs either.

I don't have a subscriber copy but it's been very widely shared so the usual archiving locations should have copies.

For anyone that needs a summary of the legal papers, the NYT article is very good and I'd recommend it. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/21/business/media/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-it-ends-with-us.html#commentsContainer

You know we can bury anyone

Chilling words

https://archive.ph/rXhrB

Lively is famous and her husband is even more. I can only hope that this shines a very bright light on how easily bad actors can manipulate social media.

I think we also need to be clear why he wanted to ruin her.
It ends with us is a film about domestic violence in which Baldoni played the abusive husband and Lively the wife.
The 'rift on set' happened when she gave them the below list of demands in order to keep filming.
Note how often 'No more' is mentioned. It is absolutely chilling.

1. No more showing nude videos or images of women, including producer’s wife, to Blake Lively and/or her employees.
2. No more mention of Justin Baldoni or James Heath’s ‘pornography addiction’ or Blake Lively’s lack of pornography consumption to Blake Lively or to other crew members.
3. No more discussions to Blake Lively and/or her employees about personal experiences with sex, including as it relates to spouses or others.
4. No more mention to Blake Lively or her employees of personal times that physical consent was not given in sexual acts, as either the abuser or the abused.
5. No more descriptions of their own genitalia to Blake Lively.
6. No more jokes or disparaging comments to be made to Blake Lively and/or her employees about HR complaints Wayfarer has already received on set or about ‘missing the HR meeting’.
7. No more inquiries by Justin Baldoni to Blake Lively’s trainer without her knowledge or consent to disclose her weight.
8. No more mention by Justin Baldoni of him ‘speaking to’ Blake Lively’s dead father.
9. No more pressing by Justin Baldoni for Blake Lively to discloser her religious beliefs, or unsolicited sharing of his.

10. If Blake Lively and/or her infant is exposed to COVID again, Blake Lively must be provided with immediate notice as soon as Wayfarer or any other producers become aware of such exposure, without her needing to uncover days later herself.

11. An intimacy coordinator must be present at all times when Blake Lively is on set in scenes with Justin Baldoni.

12. No more personal, physical touching, or sexual comments by Justin Baldoni or James Heath to be tolerated by Blake Lively and/or any of her employees, as well as any female cast or crew without their express consent.

13. No more improvising of kissing. All intimate touch must be choreographed in advance with Blake Lively and an intimacy coordinator. No biting or sucking of lip without Blake Lively’s consent. All intimate on camera touch and conversation must be ‘in character’, not spoken from Justin Baldoni to Blake Lively personally.

14. Blake Lively to have representative on set at all times and with a monitor during scenes involving nudity, sexual activity, or violence with Justin Baldoni.

15. All actors participating with Blake Lively in intimate scenes involving her being in any state of nudity or simulated nudity must be classified as active, working actors, not "friends" of the director or producers, and must be pre-approved by Blake Lively.

16. No more filming of any Blake Lively nudity without a fully-executed, SAG-compliant nudity rider in place. Any such footage already shot without this rider in place and indirect violation of SAG requirements may not be used without Blake Lively’s and her legal representatives prior, written consent.

17. Any scene by Blake Lively, or another performer depicting the character of "Lily", that involves nudity or simulated sex must be conducted strictly in accordance with the above-referenced nudity rider and must adhere to the Blake Lively-approved script.

18. An intimacy coordinator must be on set for all scenes involving nudity and/or simulated sex and must have a monitor to ensure compliance.

19. No monitors to be viewed or accessible on set, or remotely, during closed set scenes except by Blake Lively-approved essential crew and personnel.

20. No more entering, attempting to enter, interrupting, pressuring or asking Blake Lively to enter her trailer or the makeup trailer by James Heath or Justin Baldoni while she is nude, for any reason.

21. No more private, multi hour meetings in Blake Lively’s trailer, with Justin Baldoni crying, with no outside Blake Lively appointed representative to monitor.

22. No more pressing by Justin Baldoni to sage any of Blake Lively’s employees.

23. Producer Alex Saks to be given standard rights, inclusion, and authority per her job description and as represented to Blake Lively when signing on.

24. Sony must have an active, daily role in overseeing physical production for the remainder of the film to monitor safety for cast and crew, schedule, logistics, problem solving and creative.

25. Engagement of an experienced producer to supervise the safety of the cast and crew, schedule, logistics, problem solving and creative for the remainder of the shoot. (examples: Todd Lieberman, Elizabeth Cantillon, Miri Yoon, Lynette Howell).

26. Engagement of a Blake Lively-approved, A-list stunt double to perform Lily in scenes with Justin Baldoni involving rape and/or violence. Blake Lively to perform only close- up work or work from a Blake Lively pre-approved shot list in scenes with Justin Baldoni involving sexual violence.

27. No more adding of sex scenes, oral sex, or on camera climaxing by Blake Lively outside the scope of the script Blake Lively approved when signing on to the project.

28. No more asking or pressuring Blake Lively to cross physical picket lines.

29. No more retaliatory or abusive behaviour to Blake Lively for raising concerns or requesting safeguards

30. An in-person meeting before production resumes with Justin Baldoni, James Heath, Alex Saks, the Sony representative, the new producer, Blake Lively, and Blake Lively's spouse Ryan Reynolds to confirm and approve a plan for implementation of the above that will be adhered to for the physical and emotional safety of Blake Lively, her employees and all the cast and crew moving forward.