#''ThERe'S A SoCIaL MeDIa CaMPaiGn AgAiNst AmBEr''

[bloembedgum1]

Can't believe people are back on this

[whitegownsandflowercrowns]

I’m reading the lawsuit now. I’m not sure. How can I tell if it’s legit vs lies?

Genuine thanks for this question and not just immediately assuming that she's lying.

Look, at the end of the day, none of us were there. The only people that know what truly went down are the people that were on that set (which is true of any lawsuit), but here's what's really convincing me.

First things first, Baldoni hired Melissa Nathan back in August to run his public relations (and this article even mentions the allegations that he made Lively uncomfortable). Nathan worked for Johnny Depp during his defamation trial against Amber Heard, and it has been found that a technique called "astroturfing" was used against Heard on social media during this trial. Astroturfing is defined as "the deceptive practice of presenting an orchestrated marketing or public relations campaign in the guise of unsolicited comments from members of the public." Basically, artificially creating hate or hype for a public figure but making it seem organic. If you remember the Depp/Heard trial, you remember how much social media seemed to turn against her. If you remember this summer, you remember how much social media seemed to turn against Blake Lively. The fact that the same public relations team was on the other side of both alleged smear campaigns is a red flag.

Second, the text messages that have been released between Baldoni and the PR team are, in my opinion, incredibly damning. One member of the team, Jennifer Abel, texted Nathan "I think you guys need to be tough and show the strength of what you guys can do in these scenarios. He wants to feel like she can be buried." Nathan responded "Of course - but you know when we send over documents we can't send over the work we will or could do because that could get us in a lot of trouble. We can't write we will destroy her. Imagine if a document saying all the things that he wants ends up in the wrong hands. You know we can bury anyone." Right below are some screenshots from the New York Times article:

Later texts also involve praise for this article

Now, is it possible that all of these texts have been faked? Of course. But they are also lengthy (I did not include all of them here) and considering what I mentioned above, unlikely.

Thirdly, I'm just considering who has more to gain from this. I will admit my own bias here - I've never bought the idea that women by and large make allegations to become rich or famous or to gain sympathy. Amber Heard is probably still one of the most hated women on the planet. Name five of Bill Cosby's accusers off of the top of your head.

But what does each party have to gain? If Baldoni loses this case and is found in the public eye to have sexually harassed the women on the set of It Ends With Us, that's probably the end of his career. As far as I know, he doesn't have the industry goodwill that Roman Polanski or Woody Allen or even Johnny Depp do, and he will most likely start losing acting and directing roles. If he wins, and the public decides that Lively is lying, his career won't be destroyed. It will almost certainly have been set back, and there will always be people who'll look at him differently, but overall he should be fine. He may even gain a new fanbase.

If Lively loses this case and is found to have been lying, her career is tarnished forever. She will undoubtedly be known as the "next Amber Heard," and she will lose out on acting roles. The taint may even carry over to her husband. If she wins, and the public decides that Baldoni did in fact sexually harass women on set, she will probably be fine. Like Baldoni, there will always be people who'll believe that she was lying, but she'll be overall fine. However, it's important to note that she had a third option: to not pursue this at all. If she chooses not to pursue legal action against Baldoni, both of their careers remain unimpacted. While there would still have been a negative public perception of her, it probably would have blown over eventually. A lawsuit and possible trial is much more permanent in people's memories. So to me, the fact that she's choosing to pursue this knowing what the outcome of her losing would be speaks volumes.

Finally, the fact that her lawsuit states that other women on set were harassed and felt uncomfortable. Again, could be a lie, but that is a lie that is very easy to disprove. And if the women who worked on this set testify that they never felt uncomfortable, that will permanently damage her case. It just feels like too much of a risk to play with if you're lying.

Of course, don't just take my word for it - do your own research, seek out differing opinions, etc. but those are my views. I hope they helped in some way!

[radiobyers]

i live in a country where i can call johnny depp a wife beater & face no consequence because his abuse was proven true in court.

i live in a world where johnny depp is idolised & able to run a successful smear campaign against a woman whom he purposefully sued in the state of virginia because of their weak anti-SLAPP laws.

every move made against amber has been strategically done to isolate her. the general public has helped him continue his abuse. he gets to continue his career, she gets the blame for his behaviour.

stop believing “facts” you’ve read on social media. keep up with trials yourself & educate yourself on the use of propaganda. don’t participate in someone else’s smear campaign.

[hypergeneratordrama]

i totally support blake lively in this new battle against the z!0nist justin baldoni. i won’t fall for the pr tactics he’s using, just like the wife beater johnny depp did. this is just another way to bring women down and silence their voices. the same thing happened with amber heard, where endless hate campaigns on social media, driven by incels and misogynists

women deserve to be heard and supported, especially when they face such overwhelming backlash for standing up for themselves. this isn’t just about one case,it’s about a pattern of tearing down women who dare to speak out. i will always believe women, and i’ll stand with them against this cycle of hate

i will always believe women

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Emily Singer at Daily Kos:

A new poll released on Tuesday found that a majority of Americans believe former President Donald Trump would sign a national abortion ban into law, a sign that his desperate attempt to have it both ways on the abortion issue is not working. The Navigator Research survey found that 51% of Americans believe Trump would sign a federal abortion ban, including 49% of independent voters who could be decisive in deciding a close election. The poll also found that a whopping two-thirds think Trump believes that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases—even though 64% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. The poll is a warning sign for Trump, who has been desperately trying to thread the needle on the abortion issue since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, paving the way for Republican-controlled legislatures to ban abortion at any stage of pregnancy. Currently, 21 states ban abortion before fetal viability, with seven states banning the procedure in almost all circumstances, according to The New York Times.

Trump has bragged multiple times about being responsible for the end of Roe. “After 50 years of failure, with nobody coming even close, I was able to kill Roe v. Wade, much to the ‘shock’ of everyone,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social social media platform in 2023, adding that he “put the Pro Life movement in a strong negotiating position” to ban abortion across the country. “What I did is something—for 52 years they’ve been trying to get Roe v. Wade into the states. And through the genius and heart and strength of six Supreme Court justices, we were able to do that,” Trump said again at the Sept. 10 presidential debate against Vice President Kamala Harris.

But Trump has also tried to claim that he wouldn't sign a national abortion ban into law—even though he’s advocated for a national abortion ban in the past.  “Everyone knows I would not support a federal abortion ban, under any circumstances, and would, in fact, veto it, because it is up to the states to decide based on the will of their voters,” Trump wrote in a post on X. That is not the position Trump had when he was in office. In 2018, Trump told people gathered at the March for Life—an annual anti-abortion march in Washington, D.C.—that he wanted Congress to pass a national abortion ban.  “​​I’ve called on Congress—two of our great senators here, so many of our congressmen here—and called upon them to defend the dignity of life and to pass legislation prohibiting  late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in their mother’s womb,” Trump said in a speech at the March for Life, referencing the 20-week abortion ban legislation that Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina introduced.

[...] “Everything is wrong with our country and nothing’s right and all they talk about is abortion,” Trump moaned at a September campaign rally, whining that “the fake news keeps saying women don’t like me.” He later said that if he wins women, “will no longer be thinking about abortion”—a bizarre and absurd comment as women will continue getting pregnant and needing reproductive freedom even if Trump wins. Harris, meanwhile, has made her support for reproductive freedom a cornerstone of her campaign. She promised that if elected, she’d sign a law restoring the protections Roe provided if Congress puts it on her desk.  Her campaign has been running ads highlighting Trump’s anti-abortion record. And at her rallies, she has been telling the story of Amber Thurman, a Georgia woman who died because she did not receive prompt abortion care.  “Donald Trump still refuses to take accountability, to take any accountability, for the pain and the suffering he has caused," Harris said at a rally in Atlanta on Oct. 20.

A poll from Navigator Research conducted between October 3rd and 7th reveals that a majority of voters would expect Donald Trump to sign a national abortion ban of some kind if he is elected.

Want to prevent such a ban from ever happening? Vote Kamala Harris and Democrats down the ticket.

[warningsine]

Just over a year ago, a woman told a crowded room that her ex-husband had kicked and slapped her. She described him throwing a phone at her face. She described him penetrating her with a wine bottle. “I remember not wanting to move because I didn’t know if it was broken,” she said. “I didn’t know if the bottle that he had inside me was broken.” While she said all these things, people laughed. People called her a whore and a liar. People cheered for her ex-husband, and made posters and T-shirts emblazoned with his face.

Only about 14 months have passed since Amber Heard was mocked and shamed on a global stage. But, apparently, that means it’s now high time to relive it. This week, a new three-part series from director Emma Cooper drops on Netflix (UK viewers can also watch via Channel 4 on demand). That’s right folks, we’re back in the hellscape that is Depp v Heard.

There are certain legal cases that transcend courtroom drama to become full-blown ‘where were you when’ cultural moments. Usually, these ‘trials of the century’ are criminal trials. Charles Manson in 1970; OJ Simpson in 1995. But, occasionally, a different calibre of case will grip the public consciousness – one that spins around sex and humiliation; one that strikes to the heart of how contemporary culture understands gender and power. In 1991, attorney Anita Hill testified that Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her while she worked as an adviser to him. The Senate ultimately confirmed Thomas’ nomination, while Hill received death threats. Just a few years later, as the new millennium swam into view, another sex scandal rocked American society. This time, the main characters were President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Despite Clinton eventually admitting to having had an affair with Lewinsky, for many years the court of public opinion was clear in its verdict: Monica Lewinsky was either a whore, or a liar, or both.

In a sense, the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard defamation trial, which took place from April 11 to June 1 2022, in Fairfax County, Virginia, combined elements of all of these previous ‘trials of the century’. As with Clinton and Lewinsky, a relationship between a younger woman and an older, more famous and more powerful man was under the microscope. In an echo of Hill v Thomas, during which lawmakers accused Anita Hill of suffering from a ‘delusional disorder’, a psychologist hired by Depp’s legal team ‘diagnosed’ Heard with borderline personality disorder and histrionic personality disorder. Like Charles Manson, the man at the centre of proceedings was also the figurehead of an obsessive fan club. And if that fan club grew to resemble a cult, in its slavish devotion to Depp against all reason, it’s largely because, like Simpson’s trial, the whole thing was televised.

However, one key difference between Depp v Heard and these other previous high-profile trials, is the influence of social media on public opinion. The trial was not only ‘televised’ but also TikToked, live-streamed and memed. The tagline for Cooper’s three-parter Depp v Heard even bills the trial as ‘the first trial by TikTok’.

The show opens with the Hollywood sign flickering into Amber Heard’s face on a red carpet. There’s old footage of Depp and Heard on the Hollywood walk of fame, at a dinner, and stepping off a boat in Venice glitch and distort into shots of Los Angeles freeways. News anchors read headlines about the couple, and about the trial. The screen glitches again, into a tree lined highway in Virginia. More clipped footage, more contextualising news clips. Then one anchor raises an important issue – a crucial factor in the trial proceedings that, a year on, often gets lost in the heady internet fog of misinformation, conspiracy, clout-chasing and PR campaigns. Why was the whole sorry spectacle staged in Virginia, when neither Heard nor Depp live or work there?

Well, the ‘official’ reason Depp was allowed to sue in the state is because the news outlet that ran Heard’s article, The Washington Post, “houses its printing press and online server in Fairfax County.” Yet, it’s also because, under Virginia law, the trial judge can decide whether to allow cameras in the courtroom.

Heard’s team tried to exclude the cameras from the trial. At a pre-trial hearing in February, attorney Elaine Bredehoft noted there was already a huge amount of media attention on the trial, as well as scrutiny from what she described as “fearful anti-Amber networks”. “What they’ll do is take anything that’s unfavourable,” Bredehoft said, “they’ll take out of context a statement, and play it over and over and over and over again.” Depp’s team, on the other hand, wanted the trial televised. “Mr. Depp believes in transparency,” his lawyer, Ben Chew declared. It should have been a sign of what was to come that the judge sided with Depp. “I don’t see any good cause not to do it,” Penney Azcarate, the chief judge of Fairfax County, announced. Others saw it differently. “Allowing this trial to be televised is the single worst decision I can think of in the context of intimate partner violence and sexual violence in recent history,” Michele Dauber, a professor at Stanford Law School said in May 2022. “It has ramifications way beyond this case.”

One of the ramifications of Judge Azcarate’s decision is that Depp v Heard is now on our screens. But, none of those quotes from various legal professionals are taken from the series. Indeed, there are no expert voices at all. There is no narration. No one who was involved in the trial is involved in this directly. There is no ‘broad view’, or ‘behind the scenes’, or ‘recontextualising with the benefit of hindsight’. This is a documentary in the loosest of senses. Early takes from the other side of the pond have been split – some critics have suggested it “casts the trial of the decade in a new light”, while others have deemed it “nothing more than a tactless win for pro-Johnny fans”. Perhaps this shouldn’t come as a surprise, given that the trial itself was so notoriously divisive. Personally, I’m inclined to agree with Audra Heinrichs of Jezebel, who described the docuseries as playing “like a highlight reel from hell”. 

If Depp v Heard suggests anything, it’s that people consuming the trial were biased. Well, that’s hardly a scoop, and to my mind, it’s certainly not worth the full, three-hour docuseries treatment. The series doesn’t dig into the motivations of the anti-Amber content creators or their backgrounds. For example, one prolific poster and top Depp stan who is featured extensively but anonymously in Cooper’s three-parter is Andy Signore. Not long before the Depp v Heard trial began, Signore had been fired from Screen Junkies, the YouTube-focused company he founded, for a variety of sexual misconduct allegations. Having set up his channel Popcorned Planet after being dismissed, Signore now posts livestreams about ‘daily news’ and ‘pop culture justice.’ Mainly, he covers what he characterises as the injustice of the #MeToo movement. Signore more than doubled the following of his YouTube channel during Depp v Heard. He made more than 300 videos about the trial, ratcheting up millions of views as he built a new reputation as a crusader for ‘justice’ and, crucially, making money in the process.

All the content creators immortalised in this series, and many more besides, were making money – but this also isn’t discussed or made explicit in Depp v Heard. Cooper presumably believes this allows the content to speak for itself, and lets the viewer weigh up their own thoughts, becoming another member of the public jury. But the true effect is just blur – an endless stream of stuff. Just how much money were all these #JusticeForJohnny content creators making? Was there a coordinated and well funded online PR campaign for Depp throughout the trial, fuelled by bots, as many alleged post-trial? Depp v Heard has no answers, just more clips. He said, she said. No thoughts, just vibes.

I wrote about Depp v Heard last year as the trial was ongoing. Then, I felt like I had to maintain some semblance of neutrality in my discussion of the ‘facts’ of the case itself. The piece wasn’t about who was ‘right’, or who was telling ‘the truth’ – it was about how strange the spectacle of the case had become, and how dangerous a precedent it seemed to set, if trials about intimate partner violence could be spun into comic TikTok clips. I didn’t want to come down on one ‘side’. I wrote that “treating an ongoing defamation trial, featuring graphic and distressing testimony about physical violence, coercive control, and sexual assault, like […] Netflix’s latest true crime documentary series is, at best, distasteful and, at worst, actively dangerous.” Now, as Netflix’s latest documentary series opens up the can of worms again, the only true takeaway is how little we’ve learnt since then.

[knuckle]

i don't want to say too much about this because i do not have the abundant free time i once did to obsess over amber heard & The (Social) Media, but it is a little concerning to me that people are taking contextless therapy notes about Jason Momoa and James Wan at absolute face value when

Amber Heard has stated she is grateful and proud to be in Aquaman 2; she clearly does not want a campaign of criticism against those involved in the project

Therapy is an intensely private space meant to vent your worst fears, most irrational reactions, puzzle out how people have treated you, and make sense of things from someone who is holding you in universal positive regard. a half written sentence saying that Momoa dressed like Depp, and it was triggering does not mean that Heard was blaming Momoa for it or that she thought he was intentionally doing so

Wan's comment read as general frustration about the project & harassment from Depp's fans. Heard's response of "I'm sorry" does not necessarily mean he was actually blaming her. (He could have been but we do not have context!)

We have no idea how often these comments happened, if there were apologies to Heard, how she actually feels about it at present, except, again, that she wants her involvement with the movie to be read positively. She is trying to avoid drama.

It does not escape me that two men of color (however flawed and horrible they may or may not be) are being pitted as unrepentant and deranged abusers of a white woman whom they, unlike most of the rest of Hollywood, refused to publicly throw under the bus when she was at her lowest, and I wish people would temper their criticisms and rush to judgment in light of that.

TL:DR I don't know why I expected better of Heard's supporters, but it's just sad the way that so many people follow her life and any remnants of the trial for the scandal & drama rather than take into account what may actually be best for giving her a more peaceful life with fewer burned bridges as she wishes.

[astrangerinthestreet]

Part 2 of my Depp v Heard series looking at the social media campaign against Amber Heard following her divorce from Johnny Depp

[papirouge]

NEVER forget despite what pathological liars say, mainstream medias were in their vast majority, pro Amber.

Social media/the people, on the other hand, was siding with Johnny.

That's why so many pro Amber freaked out at the actual hate movement against Amber : they simply cannot stomach the fact that media don't control people anymore and that the common citizen can now make their own voice heard (no pun intended) loud and clear.

It was very interesting to see pro Heard complain about "the media circus" surrounding this case, as if the "society of spectacle" wasn't already a well documented observation of modern communications dynamics for the last few decades - and most importantly, not exclusive to the Depp v Heard case or society's (alleged) rampant misogyny.....

They precisely act like legacy medias which, feeling their power & influence significantly lowering by the time, attempt to remove any credibility to grassroot reinfo movement, calling them conspiracy theorists, fake news, etc.

... this reminds you of something? Pro Heard obsessively called the movement in support of Johnny "PR smear campaign" or bots. It wouldn't remotely occur to them that Johnny Depp overwhelming support in the general public was genuine, and could be rationally explained by the fact he's been one of Hollywood's most popular actor for decades with iconic roles (Edward Scissorhands, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Sleepy Hollow, Cry Baby, etc.) and mostly importantly interpreted one of Disney live action movie most beloved character: Jack Sparrow. Heard was a literally a 'who' next to him, which explains why she would never be able to leverage support in such a conflicting case (so no, it doesn't necessarily has to be misogyny)

They are obsessed in controlling the narrative, even if that means lying consistently about factual reality.

Look at them obsessively keeping tabs on whoever liked Johnny Depp first post trial Instagram post, and making entire lists off of them to be canceled....

Unsurprisingly they also suddenly started cussing out popular jury who aren't "law professionals" just because the court decision didn't give the ruling they expected... Those activists pretending to care about the people are actually the biggest elitists.

Their coping about "the tide is turning" or "I can't wait for the documentary exposing how we all wronged Amber Heard" never fails making me wonder: "who's the we?" Mainstream media were and are still in their vast majority pro Heard. The general public? They mostly moved on and rejoiced at Depp winning his case. They will never apologize or feel sorry for Heard because they don't think she deserves any apology. People don't owe nothing to celebrities. Crime of thought or opinion isn't a thing.

This is the internet: Amber Heard is not the first, last, or the only laughing stock it collectively decided to pick on for any season. And the internet will never feel sorry. Deal with it.

Tbh I also blame the #freebritney movement that made too many of you believe that TMZ and paparazzi harassing celebrities represented regular citizens and that people actively sought out to ruin her... Zoomers don't seem to grasp early 00s people were much more removed from "field reportreport" as we are today, which means they had a more apathetic perspective on celebrity struggles. If media decided to milk this repentance shtick regarding their collective coverage of Britney antics back then to revamp their image, that's on them, but expecting this dynamic onto random people (not media news) who didn't have any say on media narrative is wishful thinking....

Amber Heard is none of your friend, sister, wife or mother. None of you know her. None of you talked to her, and never will. So it's weird to me how some of you are hellbent acting like we owed anything to her.

Why elevating your parasocial involvement in a millionaire celebrity civil case as a cautionary tale for ALL women?

[originalleftist]

Even though the frenzy has mostly died down, and public opinion has shifted somewhat, Amber Heard's image remains poisoned by the trials and the associated hate campaign against her.

Just as an example, I typed "amber heard" into the search bar on Youtube. Here, in order, are the top 14 prompts it gave me:

amber heard

amber heard kate moss

amber heard johnny depp

amber heard my dog stepped on a bee

amber heard cross examination

amber heard interview

amber heard now

amber heard mentions kate moss

amber heard kiss

amber heard testimony

amber heard aquaman 2

amber heard lawyer gets owned

amber heard trial

amber heard johnny depp funny moments

See the problem? 14 prompts, and of those, 9 directly reference her abuser, the abuse, or the trial, and 3 of those are overtly derogatory/demeaning to her or her legal team.

A grand total of ONE references her work as an actor, in 11th place on the list, and then only her most recent film.

Actually search "amber heard" and view the search results, and it's even worse. Of the videos (not counting shorts) that come up, 6 of the top 10 are, just by glancing at the thumbnail/caption, overtly hostile and derogatory to her/her legal team, 3 pretty clearly are (ie using photos of her chosen to appear ugly or hostile, asserting that Aquaman 2 "failed"), and the last one appears to be an SNL skit about the Virginia trial. Of the shorts, 2 or 3 out of the first 8 visible are overtly negative, and at least 6 reference the trial or other scandals/controversies.

Granted most places I've seen aren't as bad as Youtube, Youtube is the absolute bottom of the barrel for hate content on social media, a recent study by the Anti-Defamation League actually found it was the worst offender for monetizing hate over Facebook and Musk's Twitter. But still.

If you are a random person who searches her name on Youtube, nearly everything you see about her will be about the Virginia trial or related controversy, most of it overtly demeaning/vilifying her. You have to actively look to find anything positive about her or her work or any other aspect of her life, and even then, you WILL have to trawl through a lot of MRA/Alt. Reich-ish content designed to illicit feelings of hatred, disgust, and contempt toward her, and often toward women and abuse survivors generally. If you are someone who didn't follow the trial, or a young person in a few years who was too young to remember it, and you look her name up, these are the first things you'll likely see, and your first impression of her. Everything else about her life- her dozens of film and television roles, her other relationships, her extensive activism and charitable work, is obscured. And any future work that she does will likely be difficult to promote, because it'll get quickly buried in all this shit (I am reminded of Steven Bannon's infamous remark describing his media tactics, "flood the zone with shit", and much of the hate campaign against Heard is very much in his style). And that will follow her for years- to some extent, probably, forever.

And somehow, that's not the saddest part about all of this. The saddest part is that she has a young daughter who, if not already, will soon be old enough to go on social media, or talk to people who have, and find out exactly what much of the world says about her mother, and by association her. Lovely.

And to be honest I feel guilty even posting about it any more, because even by posting about it to call it out, I'm still contributing to the fact that so much of the content on social media about her is about the abuse and trial, that that's still defining how her whole life is perceived, and I know that, and I know that she probably doesn't want to be defined by that forever. Which is part of why I've tried to consciously shift in recent months to posting more about the rest of her life and work, and less about the trials and the witch-hunt.

But sometimes I do still feel the urge to point at this shit and say "What the fuck?"

[sseditorialrunway]

The Supermodel

A Supermodel is a model who is, as we would put it in today's terms, 'booked and busy'. Famous supermodels include Naomi Campbell, Linda Evangelista, Carla Bruni, Gisele Bundchen and Tyra Banks, to name a few.

Frankie Raydar is a top model who reached supermodel status in the early 2000s. She was in such high demand that designers often paid her extra to cancel other bookings.

Often, a new group of supermodels emerge from the rest of the group. Supermodels walk in multiple highly publicised runway shows by notorious fashion houses and are the face of campaigns.

Here, Gisele walks the Dior 2003 runway show and stars in the Dior 2003 campaign.

Supermodels differ from standard models because they top runway shows, print covers, achieve double-page spreads and often wear the most expensive items in the collection. Celebrities will then wear these designs on the red carpets.

Models would historically become a designer's muse. Famous muses have been Amber Valetta for Versace, Adriana Lima & Tyra Banks for Victoria's Secret and Natasha Poly for Gucci. The rise of Victoria's Secret changed this.

Victoria's Secret was a popular runway show because they used supermodels in their runway shows and, of course, put bras and panties on display. They were one of the first brands to use technology to push the commercialism of the brand.

Being contracted to Victoria's Secret as an 'Angel' meant widespread attention for the models. This was a new pathway for models to reach supermodel status.

Models who could not book every show during fashion seasons could make it up during the 1-hour lingerie extravaganza.

The commercialisation of Victoria's Secret meant that angels who could not book fashion and beauty campaigns, they would still achieve circulation attention through the catalogue produced by the lingerie giant.

Models such as Heidi Klum, Alessandra Ambrosio, Selita Ebanks and Marisa Miller reached supermodel status this way. They didn't walk in many high fashion shows like the other girls but could command high salaries when they did.

That's another thing. Supermodels are paid far better than your average model. Supermodels command 5 figures for walking just one show. This ties into the point earlier about Frankie Raydar.

90s supermodels stood out with just their first names. Naomi. Tyra. Helena. Cindy. Tatiana. Linda. Claudia. Yasmeen. Kate. Shalom. Christy.

Early 2000s supermodels include Gisele. Frankie. Carmen. Karolina. Karen. Isabeli. Eva. Maggie. Amber. Caroline. Adriana. Alessandra. Selita. Fernanda. Michelle. Natalia. Note that most, if not all, of the models, have previously worked with Victoria's Secret.

The next generation of supermodels includes Daria. Natasha. Anja. Caroline. Snejana. Lily. Izabel. Racquel. Hana. Julia. Vlada. Jessica. Magdalena. Mariacarla. Gemma. Maryna. Eugenia. Doutzen. Andrea. Karmen. Abbey-Lee. Bianca.

After this, supermodels begin to fall off. Where there were supermodels, they were few are far between. Supermodels in this generation include Candice. Chanel. Jourdan. Cara. Karlie. Joan. Liu-Wen.

In recent times, it has become difficult for some to pinpoint a supermodel. Social media is the new pathway into superstardom, and girls no longer need to be scouted in the streets.

The early 90s supermodels are now mothers, and the new generation of top models is here. Top models include Gigi. Bella. Kendall. Kaia. Binx. Cara. Irina. Adut. Anok. Imaan. Sora. Rianne. Mica. Maty. Mona. Vittoria.

A supermodel must dominate both the runway and print side of the business. Star in many campaigns at once and command a high salary for a day's work.

There you have it. When someone mentions a 'supermodel', you understand what that means and a benchmark against which to measure.

Something can be said for Victoria's Secret angels being supermodels. However, their pulling power has dropped since the early days. They also don't walk in as many shows nor command high salaries from Victoria's Secret.

A key Victoria's Secret model who doesn't fit this stereotype is Grace Elizabeth. She books multiple campaigns and runway shows, including Versace and Chanel.

Celebrity doesn't traditionally equal supermodel status. However, if a model's celebrity causes them to land multiple covers and book multiple shows in one season, they may qualify for supermodel status.

[news365timesindia]

[ad_1] Blake Lively vs Justin Baldoni: It Ends With Us co-stars are currently at legal war after Lively sued actor-director Baldoni for sexual harassment and a smear campaign to destroy her reputation. In the latest development, the actress has received support from the production company Sony, itself. According to a report in Variety, Sony has shared a statement extending support to Blake Lively stating "any such attacks have no place in our business".We fully and firmly reiterate that support today: SonyAccording to the report, a Sony Pictures Entertainment spokesperson said, "We have previously expressed our support for Blake in connection with her work on and for the film. We fully and firmly reiterate that support today. Further, we strongly condemn any reputational attacks on her. Any such attacks have no place in our business or in a civil society.”(A still from the movie | Image: IMDb)Apart from Sony, Lively's The Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants co-stars America Ferrera, Amber Tamblyn, and Alexis Bledel have also extended support to the actress by issuing a joint statement. "As Blake's friends and sisters for over twenty years, we stand with her in solidarity as she fights back against the reported campaign waged to destroy her reputation," an excerpt read.Kangana Ranaut reacts to Blake Lively's sexual harassment lawsuit against Justin BaldoniOn December 23, Kangana Ranaut took to her Instagram account to re-share a post from a foreign media publication. The actress shared a post by Blake Lively's brother urging netizens to read articles detailing the ‘ruthless and nefarious smear campaign’ aimed against his sister. Along with the post, she penned a note expressing dismay over the entire situation."Even in Hollywood women who refuse to compromise, they are maligned and their careers are destroyed its not just Bollywood similar report called Hema Committee had come out about the Malayalam film industry, it is worrying and shameful," read the post.In the complaint, Lively accuses Baldoni and the studio of embarking on a “multi-tiered plan” to damage her reputation following a meeting in which she and her husband Ryan Reynolds addressed “repeated sexual harassment and other disturbing behaviour” by Baldoni and a producer on the movie. The plan, the complaint said, included a proposal to plant theories on online message boards, engineer a social media campaign and place news stories critical of Lively. [ad_2] Source link

[news365times]

[ad_1] Blake Lively vs Justin Baldoni: It Ends With Us co-stars are currently at legal war after Lively sued actor-director Baldoni for sexual harassment and a smear campaign to destroy her reputation. In the latest development, the actress has received support from the production company Sony, itself. According to a report in Variety, Sony has shared a statement extending support to Blake Lively stating "any such attacks have no place in our business".We fully and firmly reiterate that support today: SonyAccording to the report, a Sony Pictures Entertainment spokesperson said, "We have previously expressed our support for Blake in connection with her work on and for the film. We fully and firmly reiterate that support today. Further, we strongly condemn any reputational attacks on her. Any such attacks have no place in our business or in a civil society.”(A still from the movie | Image: IMDb)Apart from Sony, Lively's The Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants co-stars America Ferrera, Amber Tamblyn, and Alexis Bledel have also extended support to the actress by issuing a joint statement. "As Blake's friends and sisters for over twenty years, we stand with her in solidarity as she fights back against the reported campaign waged to destroy her reputation," an excerpt read.Kangana Ranaut reacts to Blake Lively's sexual harassment lawsuit against Justin BaldoniOn December 23, Kangana Ranaut took to her Instagram account to re-share a post from a foreign media publication. The actress shared a post by Blake Lively's brother urging netizens to read articles detailing the ‘ruthless and nefarious smear campaign’ aimed against his sister. Along with the post, she penned a note expressing dismay over the entire situation."Even in Hollywood women who refuse to compromise, they are maligned and their careers are destroyed its not just Bollywood similar report called Hema Committee had come out about the Malayalam film industry, it is worrying and shameful," read the post.In the complaint, Lively accuses Baldoni and the studio of embarking on a “multi-tiered plan” to damage her reputation following a meeting in which she and her husband Ryan Reynolds addressed “repeated sexual harassment and other disturbing behaviour” by Baldoni and a producer on the movie. The plan, the complaint said, included a proposal to plant theories on online message boards, engineer a social media campaign and place news stories critical of Lively. [ad_2] Source link

[hellsbellschime]

im not saying that the pr team didnt plant stories but I think the reason this was more successful than other astroturfing campaigns is that they didn't need to really do much. negative stuff that already existed but wasn't mainstream news resurfaced and then it was a domino effect. once the first piece of blake critical info dropped people ended up doing this almost entirely independently which is why I'm also lol-ing at all the people acting like they fell for an organised pr slander campaign when what happened here resembles every other cancellation and witch hunt people online have been accused of doing for ages.

the gleefulness that people had taking down blake is less relevant in an amber heard society hates women way imo, but in a social media witch hunters enjoy calculated takedowns of people and want to destroy their lives systematically way. they find 'bad' people who deserve it in order to permit themselves that behaviour. not that she shouldn't be critiqued but thats just generally not what these types of campaigns are really about.

Yeah that's fair, it is social media's favorite pastime to collect the worst things people have ever said or done and create a dossier about why we shouldn't like them. And Amber Heard was kind of a unique situation in that she was a much more unknown quantity than Blake, Blake has had plenty of gaffes in public before whereas a lot of people barely knew who Amber was before the orchestrated astroturfing against her.