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

the name cailin suggests a young girl.

Nope, she’s an Irish Mammy. I know so many of her. From a respectable family, not too religious, lovers of gossip. Could well be a teacher, not used to being contradicted or being on the wrong end of the Socratic method.

I don't think a freelance Irish mammy would produce such formulaic DARVO on demand. It comes across as much more end-of-year budget PR hire.

Agree. The whole "information I've gleaned" was absolute bullshit - making it sound as if she's been off in the corners of the internet mining for hard to find clues, instead of discussing a huge high profile case with legal paperwork and a well researched credible news story freely available.

I particularly love the idea that Taylor Swift needed help to get a song put into a film. For the money. The billionaire Taylor Swift.

I have just googled “movies with Taylor Swift songs in” and 43 have come up. I have no idea if 43 is correct but two of those listed were for The Hunger Games. I have googled a bit more and verified that two Taylor Swift songs (Safe and Sound and Eyes Wide Open) were indeed used for The Hunger Games.

It Ends With Us is a good film but it isn’t at all on a par with The Hunger Games so getting a song in it is probably not that exciting for Taylor Swift.

TS also made the title track for Where the Crawdads Sing.

Also, it’s not like BL was having to make strictures like the usual bad enough office scenarios… she is talking about being semi naked in a birth scene with her feet in stirrups and a small piece of cloth on presumably fairly exposed genitals… and her ask is not to have JBs random mates dropped in as her obstetrician and no random men wandering on to set!!! While her feet are in stirrups! God love all actresses.

Link to lawsuit filed 24 Dec by Abel's former employer. Stephanie Jones of Joneswork sacked Abel when she discovered Abel colluding with Nathan to poach clients and leave Joneswork.

In the process of sacking her, Jones recovered Abel's work phone – and that's how the incriminating messages above were found.

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=Xc9lTZnkJAsclCjfCv0G4g==
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
Stephanie Jones, Jonesworks LLC, Plaintiffs,
-against-
Jennifer Abel, Melissa Nathan, Justin Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios LLC, and JOHN
DOES 1-10, Defendants.

NB Jones' lawsuit claims states (p1):

Defendants Abel and Nathan secretly conspired for months to publicly and
privately attack Jones and Jonesworks, to breach multiple contracts and induce contractual breaches, and to steal clients and business prospects. Behind Jones’s back, they secretly coordinated with Baldoni and Wayfarer to implement an aggressive media smear campaign against Baldoni’s film co-star [Blake Lively], and then used the crisis as an opportunity to drive a wedge between Jones and Baldoni, and to publicly pin blame for this smear campaign on Jones—when Jones had no knowledge or involvement in it.

Not sure if this has been posted already but in case not, here's an X thread where someone explains their opinion on how BL came to be in possession of the texts that underpin her case - without them, she likely wouldn't have been able to evidence her complaint:

https://x.com/thatsmauvelous/status/1872891257753878855?s=46

"Blake Lively's sexual harassment and retaliation complaint against Justin Baldoni is very well-evidenced for a pre-discovery complaint.

She quotes many juicy and damning text messages among Baldoni's publicity team.

How did she get those texts? It's a good tale, I think. 🧵

For this story, our protagonist is not Blake Lively or Justin Baldoni. In fact, our protagonist is not even mentioned by name in Lively's legal filings. Our protagonist is a veteran publicist by the name of Stephanie Jones.

Stephanie Jones is the founder and CEO of Jonesworks, a celebrity PR firm. Over the years, Jonesworks' client list has included such high-profile figures such as Venus Williams, Jeff Bezos, and Tom Brady. And since 2017, Justin Baldoni.

Jen Abel is also a publicist. Jen joined Jonesworks in July 2020. Apparently she did well; by 2021, she was getting a cut of profit distributions, and a promise of sale proceeds in the event the company was acquired.

Jen Abel assumed responsibility for the Baldoni account at Jonesworks, and was in this role during the events that gave rise to Blake Lively's legal complaint.

Apparently Stephanie and Jen's relationship soured a bit over the years. Jen submitted her resignation in July 2024. She stated that August 23 would be her last day of work for Jonesworks.

(The resignation letter seems to be sugary sweet, to be fair.)

On August 15 - one week before Jen Abel's scheduled departure - Business Insider published a hit piece on Stephanie Jones, based on a slew of anonymous sources. A sidenote on this BI piece: it inadvertently makes Stephanie Jones sound slightly awesome.

A specific allegation in the article: When one employee took a sick day, Jones ambushed her with a hostile midday facetime call because she did not believe the employee was actually sick.

What horror! The sick day is sacrosanct!

But Jones was correct. The employee had taken a sick day to attend a job interview.

(is this hit piece graf the perfect encapsulation of culture clash between no-bs gen x bosses and avocado toast millennial/zoomer workers?)

The BI piece was somewhat frivolous, but a hit piece is a hit piece, and Stephanie Jones suspected Jen Abel was involved.

Jones apparently fired Abel on August 21, two days before her planned final day of work.

I think this surprise early termination was important. I suspect that Jen Abel was planning to wipe her work phone before returning it on August 23. But because she was taken by surprise on August 21, she didn't get the chance.

When Jonesworks confiscated Jen Abel's old work phone, they found confirmation that Jen Abel was communicating with the Business Insider reporter in the leadup to the hit piece.

Jonesworks found a slew of other interesting text messages on Jen Abel's phone.

Some trash talk about clients, including Justin Baldoni.

And, of course, some remarkable gloating about the smear campaign against Blake Lively.

Jen Abel started a new PR firm. She took several Jonesworks employees and clients with her, including Justin Baldoni, who stopped paying Jonesworks' invoices partway thru an annual contract.

That was back in August.

All was quiet until the Friday night before Christmas, when Blake Lively's lawyers drop their extraordinarily-well-documented complaint against Justin Baldoni and many of his employees and publicists in the New York Times.

Jonesworks represented Baldoni during the events described in Blake Lively's lawsuit. Lively's complaint names several PR firms and publicists as defendants, including Jen Abel. But y'know who she doesn't name as a defendant? Stephanie Jones and Jonesworks.

How did Stephanie and Jonesworks evade the shotgun blast from Blake Lively's lawyers?

I think she rigged the whole thing.

She offered up Jen Abel's work phone, full of juicy evidence, probably in exchange for a commitment to keep Jonesworks out of the suit.

This neatly explains how Lively's attorneys got all those texts before discovery.

(Her lawyers claim they used a subpoena. I'm sure that is technically true, but I'm betting the subpoena was warmly received and enthusiastically fulfilled.)

We also see why Lively's lawyers were initially a bit cagey about the sourcing of the evidence. They wanted to keep the focus on Baldoni and Lively, rather than on the preternaturally agentic PR lady pulling the strings for revenge.

I don't think a Lively-Baldoni lawsuit would occur without this contribution by Stephanie Jones. The meat of Lively's legal complaint is text messages pulled from Jen Abel's work phone. Without those texts, there is probably no complaint. Certainly no NYT article.

Incidentally, this means that Jen Abel is now the somewhat-obvious proximate cause of a high-profile sexual harassment legal action against her own client.

What have we learned? First: the Lively-Baldoni complaint is best understood as an act of savage PR-lady-on-PR-lady violence. The actual plaintiff and defendant are practically incidental.

Second: when you hire dangerous professionals, pay them on time and in full.

They are, after all, dangerous and professional.

Third: Do not use a work phone to conspire against your employer.

Last, and most important: Do not cross Stephanie Jones, lest you find yourself mysteriously surrounded by angry wolves while Stephanie watches from a distance with a faint smile on her face."

I'd guess there are many people who are/have been the focus of very similar PR orchestrated attacks, but they're never likely to be able to take a similar complaint/legal case forward as the PR team involved haven't been as sloppy as JB's PR team have been.

the Lively-Baldoni complaint is best understood as an act of savage PR-lady-on-PR-lady violence

No, it isn't. The complaint is an horrific exposé of the relentless sexual exploitation BL was subject to, with a side order of the unedifying manipulation carried out by PR firms in their (unsuccessful in this case, hooray) attempts to blame the victim. Observers would be well advised to consider the techniques and effects of that unedifying manipulation when they read stories about other people with 'celebrity' status.

The fact that it came to light through 'PR-lady-on-PR-lady violence' is incidental, though it does lower the credibility of PR workers still further. Hard though that is to imagine - gutter slime has more charm.

Thank you for bringing that piece of kite-flying back to earth with a bump, @DeanElderberry .

That X thread reads like a menu of rage-bait. Love how the writer even manages to shoehorn in a bit of generation baiting. Very skillful.

It's the clunkiness of all the attempts to deflect that amuses me. The way that x thread tells it, it's classic 'important document left on the photocopier' stuff, and as always in such cases, it really doesn't matter to anyone except the red-face line manager whether it was left there through spite, incompetence, or tradecraft, the only thing that matters is the content.

I think the PR thing is very interesting, in explaining the behind the scenes of the lawsuit.

It shouldn't detract from the serious allegations made by Lively.

It also reads like an attempt to distract attention away from Jen Abel’s (allegedly) disloyal, unprofessional and stupid behaviour (poaching her employer’s clients, talking to BI whilst still employed, using work phone for ill-advised messages) and onto Stephanie Jones’ approach to dealing with (allegedly) untrustworthy and dishonest employees. (Side note: I imagine that SJ’s clients are reassured by her not tolerating any unprofessional nonsense from her employees.)

I disagree with this bit of the x thread

“Incidentally, this means that Jen Abel is now the somewhat-obvious proximate cause of a high-profile sexual harassment legal action against her own client.”

The cause of the sexual harassment action is the (alleged) perpetrator’s decision to (allegedly) sexually harass his co-worker.

It also reads like an attempt to distract attention away from Jen Abel’s (allegedly) disloyal, unprofessional and stupid behaviour (poaching her employer’s clients, talking to BI whilst still employed, using work phone for ill-advised messages)

Indeed. And to distract attention away from the content of Abel & Nathan's campaign against Blake Lively, as revealed in their messages. The "weaponization of the weaponization of feminism", as someone described it.

These huge exercises in DARVO have a corrosive effect on the discourse space. The moment anyone tries to discuss serious abuse or any power imbalance, there's someone making a counterclaim that they're the One True Victim.

Reducing every dicussion to both-sides-ism degrades our ability to have meaningful conversations about abuse and power. It also causes a lot of people to turn off and say a plague on both your houses.

The cause of the sexual harassment action is the (alleged) perpetrator’s decision to (allegedly) sexually harass his co-worker.

This.

I don't care even a tiny little bit about Abel or Jones or any other slime-merchant - except to note how badly the PR industry en masse has managed this story.

I agree, that's not why I posted this. It's just some random person on X giving their own view/take, but referencing background that explains how BL came to be in possession of the evidence that makes her complaint, and ability to lay her case out so clearly, that I thought was interesting & worth noting. The core issue is the actions of JB, both towards BL during filming & the decision to 'bury her' afterwards. As well as those who enabled it/turned a blind eye to it. His choice. But not possible to enact the plan to 'bury her' without a PR co with the relevant expertise to manipulate press stories & social media to achieve all of that.

My point (which I didn't have time to add as was heading out when I posted) is that BL's ability to make her case & take action against JB is heavily dependent on the evidence she's presented. That's because one PR co is 'burying' another/ex employee. Not because anyone had an attack of conscience or realised the magnitude of what this sort of behaviour does to people, particularly women in the public eye. This is a newish version of a very old phenomenon used by men who abuse their power. Weinstein did the same thing to many women, destroyed careers, ensured their reputations were trashed, job opportunities lost, when he was denied the opportunity to abuse women.

BL's actions pulls back the curtains on how this happens, and her legal case documents it all in a way we rarely get to see. That's what I found interesting in the X thread, not that I agreed with that person's particular opinion or comments on the PR people.

What I find shocking in all of this is that even when there are protocols that can be used to ensure better working conditions for women in the film industry, this level of harassment still goes on, even to a women who would (to the outside world) appear to have the standing, power, money, and influence to ensure her (and other women's) working conditions were optimum & free of the behaviour JB is alleged to have engaged in. It's depressing to know that, even women who aren't silenced by their lack of standing or financial means to challenge aren't guaranteed a safe working environment.

But there's nothing new about that. The news we see is manipulated by PR agencies. Some of them employed by the entertainment industry, some by governments and Parliamentary whips, some of them by staff working for members of businesses and dynastic families. They employ investigators and spies to dig up 'dirt', they lure people into compromising situations so that they can be controlled, they try to manipulate public sentiment.

Sometimes they co-operate, sometimes they squabble. They obviously get much richer by promoting the idea of, for instance, enmity between the Princess of Wales and the Duchess of Sussex than by presenting them as two adult women with lives to live. Gossip makes money.

We knew it when it was being printed in broadsheets and tabloids and being broadcast by the BBC, we know it now that it appears online. There is nothing new about it, I've been well aware of it all my adult life, more than 40 years.

Treating it as something novel makes me wonder what people think the 'news' about anything is filtered through.

.