Denton, Gamergate and now Blake Lively

[RethinkingLife]

This article is a decent overview of not only how straightforward it is to destroy reputations, but how trivially easy it is to undermine women and feminism even or especially among those who consider themselves media savvy.

I grieve for how easy it is to operate from this playbook and it seems to consolidate tactics that have been all too successful.

“You know we can bury anyone,” crisis management expert Melissa Nathan wrote to PR executive Jennifer Abel, one of thousands of messages subpoenaed by Lively…
In a subsequent message, Nathan told Abel that Baldoni didn’t realise how lucky he was given the allegations they had heard about his on-set conduct…
In response to the social media response “really ramping up” in terms of criticism of Lively, Nathan texted Abel: “It’s actually sad because it just shows you have people really want to hate on women.” 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.”…
… the idea of the Hollywood and PR machines perverting that concept to discredit a woman apparently intent on ensuring the safety of herself and others – on the chaotic set of a film about ending cycles of domestic abuse – is a level of 4D chess that is terrifying in its imperceptibility, effectiveness and potential prevalence.
There is a chilling disconnect in the way the crisis and publicity parties rejoice in their apparent PR victory – “So much mixed messaging It’s actually really funny if you think about it,” Nathan texted Abel – and the covert warfare they allegedly used to manipulate the tabloid media into parroting their narrative. “This went so well I am fucking dying … We have the four majors standing down on HR complaint,” Nathan told Abel. When MailOnline published a piece in August asking “Is Blake Lively set to be CANCELLED?” Abel texted Nathan: “You really outdid yourself with this piece.” These methods are deadly, acutely attuned to how to form and nurture media and social media sentiment against a woman. As Taylor Lorenz writes in her newsletter User Mag, it takes its cues directly from the Gamergate playbook.
How many women has this happened to? How many smear campaigns have seduced our most base and ungenerous instincts into swallowing their line?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/24/blake-lively-allegations-actor-it-ends-with-us-justin-baldoni

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

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

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.

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. )

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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?

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?

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)

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...

It's back to Cambridge Analytica's boast about anonymously "pushing things out into the bloodstream of the internet", being careful not to let consumers know where the messaging originates.

I really noticed the negative publicity on BL.
That journalist who was whining about Blake making her want to quit after an interview.
I watched that interview and thought that actually the interviewer obviously pushed a button with Blake. BL was there to promote something and this woman started commenting on her bump and being quite sexist.
There are dozens of similar interaction with other female actors asked sexist or personal questions where they push back on the interviewer is viewed with praise.
It seemed like a reach that was pushed.

All the negativity about the promotion of the film, if that shit was going on I'd be very uncomfortable promoting the film.

Bloody hell.

Kudos to Lively for standing up for herself during filming, finishing the film and starting these legal proceedings. She's got balls. And the money for the good legal team I expect. I have wondered if the US Depp v Heard litigation would have ended differently if she'd had deeper pockets.

Reddit says that the video was edited, and that the original, longer, piece, still shows BL being a bit rude, but that she advised the journalist she was joking about the bump comment. Whether this is true or not, who knows? But the timing of the re-release of the interview was suss. It's always struck me as odd that the journalist thought it was OK for her to comment on BL's body, but was outraged to be given the same treatment back.

The same PR firm repping Baldoni, also repped Depp during his legal proceedings. They also rep Jason Sudeikis - who had Olivia Wilde served with legal papers whilst she was on stage in the middle of a public appearance.