#cancel justin baldoni

[goldlightsaber]

i'll be real, the justin baldoni thing is still such a shock to me and not for the reasons you'd expect. i know people don't really know who he is outside of ISWU/this drama, but i knew him from yearssss ago from jane the virgin and remember looking at his socials and seeing him talking about undoing toxic masculinity and stuff and i literally always thought, wow, he's this extremely conventionally attractive man with a successful (?) career, and he's a settled-down family guy who frankly doesn't have to be, and he's really making the effort to undo his own internalized misogyny and be a healthy person who embraces his emotions. good on him, i really wish more men were like that (!!!!!).

so frankly i'm kind of still...gobsmacked, because unlike a lot of people, i had a pre-existing bias in favor of him, specifically for being the kind of person who would definitely not act this way. like, truly the last person i would suspect. it was easy to believe that he was the good guy and blake lively sucked because...i previously knew justin baldoni as someone who did not suck and appeared to be making efforts to not suck, but specifically to not suck as a man in a man's world. the whole "he cares about the deeper message about domestic violence in the movie" was not hard to believe if you knew his previous track record. it didn't feel like something manufactured as part of the plot to take down blake lively.

so, insanity. the implications are....astounding. it's giving "chris d'elia family guy image" except with d'elia, that online image was curated intentionally in response to being cancelled. justin baldoni had this image before all this. i can't really wrap my head around the whys of that. and the hows. truly wild.

[girlcrushart]

I actually had this poster all ready to go a while ago and then Blake Lively basically got cancelled and Alice told me I wasn't allowed to post her. Alice and I don't fight very often but you guys, we had a pretty big fight. Like... I even broke my rule of making up before bed and slept on the couch and was still mad in the morning. You see, Alice is a big Justin Baldoni fan and was pretty pissed about how he was being made to look in the media. She not only thinks he's one of the hottest men alive, she loves his work (thru books and podcasts and interviews etc) about masculinity and thinks he's a very important voice for men in this age where a lot of men seem to be very confused. And you know, I'm with her. I am. He does seem great to me also, and I can even appreciate how dreamy he is. And frankly, in the press for that movie, Blake honestly did seem like quite a twit, let's be honest. Doing interviews on a movie about domestic violence and pitching it as a "fun night out with the girls" like it's some kind of Barbie movie, while also promoting her haircare products was... off the mark, honestly. And then that interview with the woman who she was super rude to resurfaced... and like it was all not a great look for sure. But in her defence, I think Blake was just doing what she's used to doing on press tours, and wasn't really thinking about the movie very much. She was probably on auto-pilot doing something that in all likelihood she kinda hates doing. And so she was grumpy maybe. And said some inappropriate things. It just came out that Anne Hathaway also had issues with that same interviewer, so... maybe it's the interviewer? In any case, what I was mad about was how easily we cancel women for, like... honestly... being human, and how we only sometimes cancel dudes for like, I dunno, masturbating in front of women, and then a little while later they're back doing their thing as tho nothing happened. I'm just tired of that. Anyways, Alice and I worked it out when she admitted she was blinded by her lust for a beautiful man (who honestly isn't even at fault for any of this and wasn't even the bad guy and also probably didn't want all of this to blow up in Blake's face either), and I think she'll be ok with me posting Blake now because she understands that cancelling people for making small mistakes (about situations we legit know very little about) is gross, AND Blake Lively is hot as fuck and nobody can take that away from me and that's why I wanted to post her in the first place. Today's girlcrushart guardian is Blake Lively.

[justinsentertainmentcorner]

Taylor Lorenz at User Mag (12.23.2024):

Throughout the press tour for the movie It Ends With Us, star actress Blake Lively was villainized. Once seen as a wholesome and popular celebrity, the public turned on Lively. In a seemingly endless stream of articles, tweets, TikToks, and other online posts, Lively was painted as controversial. She was deemed rude, ungrateful, a high maintenance nightmare, and a generally terrible person. Years old unflattering clips of Lively were surfaced, anonymous gossip accounts villainized her, and she was savaged in headlines. Now, it turns out that the public cancellation Lively endured was seemingly the result of a well funded PR effort to smear and discredit her so that the concerns she raised about It Ends With Us film producers Justin Baldoni and Jamey Heath's alleged misconduct wouldn't be taken seriously. Lively is suing Baldoni and the team behind the movie for orchestrating the online smear campaign after she spoke out about sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior on set. According to the suit, Baldoni subjected Lively to unwanted kissing, discussed his sex life, including encounters where he said he might not have received consent. Heath allegedly showed Lively a video of his wife naked, watched Lively in her trailer when she was topless and repeatedly entered her makeup trailer uninvited while she was undressed along with Baldoni. You can read the full list of allegations here, they are disturbing. In response to her speaking out, Lively alleges that Baldoni orchestrated a "multi-tiered plan" using "social manipulation" to ultimately "destroy" her reputation. But since details of the smear campaign broke, initially in a big feature in The New York Times, then subsequently in dozens of articles on major news sites, not one outlet has used the word misogyny. Misogyny is almost always at the core of smear campaigns targeting women, yet media coverage of these coordinated attacks consistently avoids naming it. This erasure is part of a pattern. When high profile women challenge power structures, call out abuse, or loudly express progressive values, they are met with calculated, well funded campaigns to discredit and destroy their reputations. The legacy media, when it does cover these sorts of attacks— which is exceedingly rare because the burden of proof is 100% on the women and most targets do not have the resources someone like Lively does— almost never centers the misogyny. By refusing to explicitly name misogyny when covering these campaigns, the mainstream media minimizes the systemic hatred behind these smear efforts and enables the very type of harassment they purport to critique.

Lively's case, much like the vicious smear campaign against Amber Heard during her legal battle with Johnny Depp, reveals a well-worn playbook. Baldoni and Heath even worked with the same communications consultants who Depp hired to discredit Heard. Even these consultants acknowledged the misogynistic nature of the hate Lively endured. “Socials are really really ramping up in [Baldoni's] favour, she must be furious," one comms consultant wrote to another member of the team about Lively. "It’s actually sad because it just shows you have people really want to hate on women.” Lively’s detractors leveraged social and news media to smear her professionalism, personal character, and even her unrelated business ventures, like her hair-care line. Terakeet, a marketing consultancy who produced a report on public sentiment for Lively following Baldoni's campaign, concluded that she was subject to a “targeted, multichannel online attack” similar to the one against Heard, and that it was destroying her reputation. After analyzing “the entirety of Google’s search index” for Lively’s name, Terakeet found that 35 percent of the results mentioned Baldoni, which was extremely unusual given the length of her career. The firm ultimately suggested that "the media environment was being manipulated," according to The New York Times. Meanwhile, Baldoni, amidst mounting allegations, co-hosted a podcast along with Heath called “Man Enough,” about toxic masculinity. He was framed as a champion for women in news articles. Earlier this month, Baldoni received an award by the nonprofit Vital Voices, for his supposed allyship to women. At the heart of every misogynistic smear campaign lies a readiness by both society and the media to vilify women. On Monday, one of the publicists involved in the campaign spoke out saying that they didn’t even have to enact a “social combat plan” because “the internet was doing the work for us." Powerful men can outmaneuver accusations with strategic retaliation, while women risk everything by speaking out. Men can lean into being perceived as "controversial," "difficult," "annoying," or "unstable," while the same labels are career-ending for women.

As I wrote in my book, Extremely Online: The Untold Story of Fame, Influence, and Power on the Internet, so many of these campaigns against high profile women utilize the Gamergate playbook. Gamergate was a coordinated, deeply misogynistic harassment campaign that relied on manufactured outrage cycles to terrorize women, frame them as controversial and difficult, and drive them out of the video game and media industry. Gamergate was a watershed moment in online culture because it provided a blueprint for the weaponization of social media platforms to spread hate, exploiting the legacy media’s ignorance of online culture and its tendency to take things on the internet at face value.

The Gamergate playbook relies on leveraging networked harassment to launder bad faith attacks and smear campaigns through the mainstream media, in order to drive women and marginalized people out of positions of power by framing them as controversial, untrustworthy, or difficult. Lively's lawsuit details how this playbook was run on her. And yet, despite the fact that misogyny is the central element of Gamergate-style attacks, news media refuses to call it what it is. This has led to a deep ignorance among the public on what fuels hate, and has made the majority of people unable to recognize these smear campaigns while they're happening.

The smear campaign against Blake Lively (and Amber Heard before that) reeks of Gamergate-esque misogyny, as Taylor Lorenz wrote in User Mag.

[darthmatthewtwihard]

I STAND WITH BLAKE LIVELY AND I ALWAYS WILL.

Y'all really fall for that "man spews shallow feminist talking points to distract from glaring concerns about how he actually treats women, such as numerous women in his professional orbit cutting ties with him" every damn time

[wavesoutbeingtossed]

Thinking about the perspective @didnt-hear-idsb-live-again gave about the cost of Justin Baldoni’s smear campaign against Blake compared to touring and about how little it takes to try to destroy someone’s life. And it once again makes me think of Taylor’s experience in 2016 where we can fairly safely presume similar tactics were waged against her, and how she said of that time in Vogue:

“When you say someone is canceled, it’s not a TV show. It’s a human being. You’re sending mass amounts of messaging to this person to either shut up, disappear, or it could also be perceived as, Kill yourself.”

And it makes me wonder: what is the going rate for someone’s life? What’s the itemized bill to create the special sauce accounts that will drive your target to end their life? Is that a surcharge to the standard PR hit campaign package? Is that a KPI? Is that considered satisfactory ROI by the client? Is there a bonus if that ends comes within the contract timeframe?

The way these people talk about their plan reduces their target (Blake) to practically an avatar of their hate, completely dehumanizing her, which is the entire objective. The cruelty, as always, is the point.

(Link again to the complaint)

[dreamerwriternstargazer]

It Ends With Us… Or Does It?

In the wake of Blake Lively’s stoic fight against Justin Baldoni for his alleged sexual harassment and aggressive PR campaign to ruin her image and reputation, it’s perhaps important that we all take a step back and consider the new era of MeToo and its decomposition in the digital age.

In case you, reader, are one of the few sensible minds closed off from the noise and chaos of popular social medias such as X, Instagram and Tiktok, you may not be aware of the recent “drama” between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni regarding their summer film release, It Ends With Us. The film in question had a large spotlight on it due to the fact it was an adaptation of the popular Colleen Hoover novel by the same name, in which the protagonist Lily Bloom goes through and survives an abusive marriage to love interest Ryle Kinkaid, roles played by Lively and Baldoni, respectively. To put the drama in layman’s terms, the two were feuding; it was reported by the Daily Mail (1) that Baldoni was unfollowed by Blake Lively and Colleen Hoover and that the rest of the cast appeared to be avoiding Baldoni at the US premiere as well as mention of him in press interviews. This was quickly brushed under the rug however as Blake Lively’s behaviour on the press tour took centre stage - in contrast to Baldoni who chose to highlight and discuss the abuse narrative of the film in interviews (2), Lively appeared more lighthearted in front of the cameras, focusing on emphasising the floral, feminine aesthetics through her glamorous outfits on the tour and promoting her drinks company Betty Buzz, as well as launching a haircare line Blake Brown and promoting it alongside the film (3). Such behaviour is hardly unusual for movie press nowadays and it seemed to be following the precedent that Margot Robbie had set in promoting Barbie by highlighting its feminine themes and aesthetics, however it escalated quickly with fans of the film and book commenting and putting pressure on her to talk about the darker themes of the story. Lively’s responses to questions on domestic violence ranged from polite yet ignorant (such as in interviews where she chose to talk about her love for Lily and how empowering of a character she was to play rather than domestic violence) (4) to outright insensitive by joking sarcastically about sharing her address and phone number in response to a question about how fans who cared about the abuse themes could begin a conversation with her about it (5). As a result, she has been vilified heavily on social media ever since, with many taking the opportunity to criticise her brands, mock her through comedic skits on Tiktok, and even digging up old interviews in which she acted coldly and rudely towards the interviewer (6). The tide seemed to have turned incredibly strongly on Lively, typically accustomed to popularity due to her highly publicised relationship with husband Ryan Reynolds, now suffering a riptide of nastiness as the new mean girl of pop culture, drowning her in a sea of cruel comments and hate characteristic of our online cancel culture.

And then, come Saturday 21st December 2024, a new narrative was broadcasted across our screens; Baldoni and his production company Wayfarer were the bad guys, as laid out in the 80 page legal complaint from Blake Lively published by the New York Times (7), allegedly responsible for a slew of sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour towards Lively and further members of the cast and crew, as well as hiring a PR team specifically to manufacture the social media campaign against Lively. The claims listed are a nightmare to read, from sexual, objectifying comments directed towards the female cast during filming (p.17-18), to Baldoni and Wayfarer’s CEO Jamey Heath directly intruding on Lively when nude or exposed in her trailer and refusing to grant her privacy (p.19). Further disturbing claims made were on how “Mr Baldoni ignored well-established industry protocols in filming intimate scenes, and exploited the lack of controls on set to behave inappropriately” (p.13). This claim goes on to illustrate how Baldoni was allegedly making inappropriate, sexual comments towards cast after shooting intimate scenes (p.16) as well as not hiring intimacy coordinators, improvising on said scenes and pressuring actors to make either more or make them more sexual with little to no notice, and failing to hire “nudity riders” who could “[spell] out the parameters of nudity or simulated sex scenes” (p.13). Consequently, Blake Lively made moves to set boundaries through a meeting with Baldoni and Heath on January 4th 2024 accompanied by her husband Ryan Reynolds, and all parties allegedly agreed to the terms presented by Lively, allowing the film to still be made (p.2). 

Yet, apparently this was not enough of a resolution for Baldoni and co, as displayed by the fierce and aggressive plans of attack from the PR company TAG (The Agency Group PR LLC) “to engage in “social media mitigation and proactive fan posting to counter the negative” as well as “social manipulation”” (p.5) an illegal style of PR called astroturfing*, of which consequences on Lively became the foundation for the complaint now publicised. The fight now made transparently clear to us is her challenge against Baldoni and co for the social destruction wrought on her, and with this publicity she has garnered support from official figures, fellow actors and actresses and fans in just a few short days. 

A win then, for #MeToo?

I don’t think it’s that simple.

What is truly concerning to me about this latest Hollywood scandal is not the extent of the sexual harassment Lively and others allegedly suffered, but the complex and aggressive cover up launched by TAG, a cover up that quite frankly…. Was watertight. It’s been noted online by Lively’s supporters how TAG’s involvement should have been a red flag signal to us, as they are most notably associated with Johnny Depp and the alleged online smear campaign against Amber Heard during the 2022 Depp vs Heard trial (8), however that case had a very complicated coverage with most average viewers not aware of the intricacies of the trial, let alone in possession of hindsight towards the coverage itself. As someone who could have been termed “chronically online” during the trial, I myself was completely ignorant to the nuances of the case and certainly the PR tactics used by both sides, and at the time sided against Heard due to the oversaturation of voices against her. Even now, I find it difficult in looking up anything regarding the case to find clear information removed from fanaticism for Johnny or hate against Heard, so then how can the involvement of this same PR company ring the alarm bells for me? 

This may seem like a minor complaint, one that you, dear reader, could find fault in me with, for not educating myself properly, but that is my exact point. We live in a supposed “age of information”, the digital age with knowledge at our fingertips… and yet a woman’s reputation was so easily and thoroughly torn to shreds, an extremely popular woman at that, often the apple of social media’s eyes due to her aspirational relationship with Ryan Reynolds and friendship with Taylor Swift, pop idol of millions. And how was she torn to shreds? Through our supposedly superior digital media. Through the information we all receive daily. Through every source available, fake online users overwhelming posts and forums with negative comments and “start[ing] threads of theories” (p.5) about her, third party contractors “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” (essentially influencers who were directly involved in promoting anti-Lively content) (p.9), and tabloid and broadsheet articles fed and corrupted by half truths from TAG. What is terrifying is that this woman’s reputation and her case against the powers that be, her stand against sexual harassment and her #MeToo moment was almost and could still be lost to the void because of the reality of our media today, where all sources of information rather than just unofficial ones are dubious and questionable and are used to their fullest to obscure anything resembling truth. Already Baldoni’s legal team has been quick to defend him by publishing an official statement in the New York Times against Lively’s complaint, claiming that her accusations are “false” and “another desperate attempt to ‘fix’ her negative reputation which was garnered from her own remarks and actions during the campaign for the film” from which the “internet generate[d] their own views and opinions” (9). It may not withstand the support Lively has already amassed, and the thorough, detailed publication of the events on set, but what is concerning is that the seeds of a counternarrative are already being sown. A counternarrative that has and will likely continue to be used to vilify victims of sexual assault, and scare them away from speaking up, making an example of someone as powerful and popular as Lively in a manner that makes me fear for the rest of us. It appears that the sword of misinformation and what I can only call propaganda is no longer exclusively wielded by the kings of industry and government. 

Something that strikes me as so insidiously wrong in all the triumph from the supporters of victims of online campaigns, is this unwillingness to admit the potential for mistakes in information, in people’s conclusions or characters. Instead, there’s this mass celebration of having been in the right camp in the first place, of having said the right things and supported the right person, without making a single misstep. 

Ironically, this righteousness characterises the case, as Baldoni’s stated intent behind the alleged sexual harassment and inappropriate comments towards Lively and others was in the pursuit of “making the Film “through the female gaze””, as well as to reflect Baldoni’s more progressive political views around sexuality and consent and his personal growth. The motivation behind the PR campaign against Lively too was highly centred around Baldoni’s desire to retain his image as a feminist ally, to remain righteous and so weaponised politically correct language and “survivor content” to draw audiences’ attention. It’s even mentioned in the complaint document that Baldoni proposed an “offensive move showing [ his] neuro divergence and some of the attributes that come with it," to explain that “anything that [ he had] been ‘accused of’ [was] social awkwardness and impulsive speech....", a move that appears to be consistent with recent interviews he’s had discussing his ADHD (10). Baldoni notably has been co opting politically correct language or topics in pursuit of concealment of his alleged wrongs, working to uplift his reputation as someone who talks the feminist talk, while apparently failing to walk the feminist walk. 

It’s interesting then, to view this same adherence to faultless views and language to be reflected in the loud majority of Baldoni’s critics that I’ve observed. Such people appear to affirm their righteous status as having “always known something was off” and everyone needs to “believe women”, but appear to have failed to support Lively actionably, evidence their views, or beyond that, dissect the case and the powers that made it possible. Rather than an acknowledgement of any of the issues that forced a woman into a corner; that we are beginning to have a very serious problem in finding the truth; that more people than ever are choosing short form content and information over long form; and that a reactive, blameworthy culture has festered online, there’s instead a slew of self satisfied sycophants congratulating themselves because their political purity is unblemished.

The fact of the matter is, no matter how many of you are posting “I stand with Blake Lively” and talking about how you always believed her because “ugh it just seemed like another hating women cancel culture issue”, there is no merit to your virtue in weathering a storm of misinformation, despite what you may think, because its nature as misinformation and social manipulation was completely and utterly obscured in the first place. Blake Lively really did fail to talk about domestic abuse on her press tour, she really did avoid all questions on it or handle questions in a tactless manner. Baldoni did talk about the film’s series themes as he was applauded for. All it means then, is that you ignored the available information in favour of suspicions and personal preferences, and that in this particular instance you happened to support and condemn the correct parties… What will happen then, the day your gut is wrong? 

So let me say something radical - I fell victim to the propaganda. Not significantly, not in any way that mattered, but my perception of Blake Lively was changed, I believed that she was the “mean girl” as she was painted by the media, my opinion of both her and her husband changed because “ah seems like they really are some rich entitled folks”, when hearing about his supposed involvement with scripts that he technically from what I could judge, had no right to be involving himself in. I didn’t care enough to comment on it, to hate at all, but I am guilty of believing all of it. 

Why? It was the only information out there. 

What was exempt was the story behind the scenes, the fact that Lively had fought a battle against alleged sexual harassment and reprehensible working conditions. The fact that her husband’s involvement was due to the alleged transgressions in the workplace. The fact that she was under contract to promote the movie as “a story of hope” (p.26) and to highlight the feminine themes and aesthetics. The fact that she was doing her job to avoid talking seriously about abuse because PR is still an act and obligation, and was doing her job to promote her brand which was preplanned by her and the companies involved. And the fact that Baldoni’s more impressive, serious interviews were a way to uplift his image in anticipation of the exposure of his alleged crimes. 

It was not my fault for not being aware of the stage outside of the spotlight. 

It is the fault of every internet user who perpetrated the wave of hatred and cancel culture, who fanned the flames of the witch burning of another woman, for participating in a culture of cruelty and condemnation. It is their fault for going to extremes and using snapshots of publicity through years of media to define their perception of a person, and using it to bully, mock and attempt to sabotage a woman’s career, ironically becoming the villains of the same story they demanded some profound commentary on. Not only becoming the villains, quite literally becoming complicit in the real life scenario of sexual harassment and abuse that their precious film was oh so important for. Trading a story’s importance for a real person’s life. 

What is our fault is allowing and normalising this online behaviour. 

On page 9 of the complaint document are screenshots of messages between Baldoni’s publicist Jennifer Abel and TAG crisis communications specialist Melissa Nathan, the woman responsible for running the alleged PR campaign against Blake Lively. Nathan states “[ t] he majority of socials are so pro Justin and I don't even agree with half of them [sic] lol." (p.9).

It remains evident to me that the only reason this campaign was as powerful as it was was due to the audience unwilling to take it with a grain of salt, as the phrase goes, and who then went on to unwittingly become the biggest agents of it. 

How then, is it a victory that people who ignored all information and blindly combatted it, or perhaps silently supported Lively but did nothing to substantiate it, were on the right side all along? How is that considered a victory when we now know the very successful machinations of social media manipulation, and the vicious extent they were taken to, to discredit and hurt someone? 

You could be on the right person’s side every day of your life. What good does it mean if there is every avenue for misinformation, manipulation and abuse? 

What good is there if you can’t help others stay on track with the truth? 

What good is it if the good people you support end up suffering regardless, because of our culture’s habitual negligence of respectful, measured behaviour online, and lack of critical thinking.

Ultimately, it was not our fault for being fooled. 

It remains, however, our responsibility to take a step back, re-evaluate our conduct, and search for the truth, to have minds open enough and humble enough to be able to change them. To accept the magnitude of information out there and the flux of “truth” presented in the media, and to rein in our intense impulse to react cruelly in the face of human error, in ourselves or those on the plethora of screens we’re surrounded by. 

Without that understanding, any social movement, #MeToo or otherwise, will lose their efficacy and strength as they have started to in the past years, lose credibility in favour of reactionary social media usage, and the victims of abuse, sexual assault, discrimination or any other kind of injustice will once again be suffering. Pyres of the stakes we built to keep ourselves cosy, warm, and ignorant of the cold, grey, digital world around us.

*Astroturfing - the deceptive practice of presenting an orchestrated marketing or public relations campaign in the guise of unsolicited comments from members of the public.

Sources (I’ve ensured to include links to an accessible archive version of the NYTimes articles):

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-13727789/it-ends-blake-lively-justin-baldoni-feud.html

https://www.today.com/popculture/movies/justin-baldoni-it-ends-with-us-interview-rcna165792

https://www.buzzfeed.com/natashajokic1/it-ends-with-us-blake-lively-justin-baldoni

https://www.tiktok.com/@cbsmornings/video/7400806313539718442

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/blake-lively-cruel-response-ends-154520069.html?guccounter=1

https://youtu.be/F2-2RBi1qzY?si=hViBatehgTMOvxVA

https://web.archive.org/web/20241221211059/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/12/21/us/complaint-of-blake-lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc-et-al.html

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/justin-baldoni-hires-pr-crisis-manager-melissa-nathan-it-ends-with-us-1235973715/

https://web.archive.org/web/20241221160802/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/12/21/us/statement-to-the-new-york-times.html

 https://people.com/justin-baldoni-reveals-he-was-diagnosed-with-adhd-at-40-8756535

[darthmatthewtwihard]

I stand with Taylor Swift.

I stand with Blake Lively.

Blake Lively has sued Justin Baldoni for sexual harassment and misconduct she experienced on the set of ‘It Ends With Us’. In the court documents reviewed by the New York Times, it was revealed that Justin Baldoni’s PR firm TAG PR wanted to falsely plant stories about Taylor as part of the smear campaign they were running against Blake.

The lawsuit states that they were exploring “planting stories about the weaponization of feminism and how people in Lively’s circle like Taylor Swift, have been accused of utilizing these tactics to ‘bully’ into getting what they want.”

TAG PR’s majority stakeholder is a company run by Scooter Braun.

Back in late August, right around the time this smear campaign was being carried out, Scooter Braun suddenly posted to his Instagram stories about Blake and Taylor spending time together, to bring attention to their friendship out of nowhere on the weekend of Blake’s birthday. (x)

[jacks-weird-world]

Cancellation on: February 2, 2025. Even in that, he is very CAPRICORNIAN.

When you have nothing to say, it's better to keep quiet! 🤫

Come on, React, Jack!

[jellogram]

I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone on tumblr talk about this Blake Lively thing. Justin Baldoni straight up hired a PR firm that specializes in smear campaigns to "bury" her, just because she asked him to *checks notes* stop sexually harassing her and saying he could communicate with her dead father.

And of course the internet fell for the smear campaign hook, line, and sinker, dragged every one of Blake's missteps through the judgement gauntlet, and declared her cancelled.

The PR firm in question is the same one that Johnny Depp hired.

So if you've been loud about supporting women and dragging everyone who criticized Amber Heard et al, I hope you also show up for Blake. Because it happened again. And obviously it wasn't as severe this time, but it fucking HAPPENED. AGAIN. I hope now that the lawsuit is in the news, people will catch on quickly this time and we can make some actual progress with how people perceive these situations.

[sparklywombatwolfcalzone]

I have even seen tweets reminding people with bad intentions that Justin Baldoni was Cole Sprouse's director in Feet Five Apart and that this proved that he was an abuser.

Obviously I suppose that it was signed by a fan of Lili. But what has become clear from this story of Justin and Blake is that the attacks on the prestige of professionals are part of the petty fights of the public networks of Hollywood actors, and after seeing how all the cancellations, rumors and attacks against Cole were since his breakup with Lili, I have no proof, but I also have no doubt that the entourage or Lili herself paid for Cole to be accused of everything he was accused of.

As seen in real time, they were not organic reactions from the entire public, but something orchestrated by small accounts that also knew internal information and that others expanded with specific slogans.

[sronti]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/21/business/media/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-it-ends-with-us.html?unlocked_article_code=1.jU4.-whv.NUpJEFxum2ii&smid=url-share

Nagyon remélem, hogy ez a cikk messzire jut, ez az igazi cancel culture és elég ritkán látni ilyen közelről.

[notafunkiller]

Hello, Andreea! Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you and everyone! 🎄

Since those two blogs decided not to post my ask, I’ll share it here instead—especially because an anon pointed out:

"Especially, how they are avoiding their involvement in the PR mess against Blake Lively"

Here is my ask an anotherblog *cough* and another publicist one:

Some blogs are claiming that celebrities can’t buy articles, but the New York Times just dropped a bombshell piece proving otherwise. The article breaks down how PR crisis teams rewrite narratives, even paying outlets like the Daily Mail to smear Blake Lively: - New York Times Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/21/business/media/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-it-ends-with-us.html - The Daily Mail bought article: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-13749783/Blake-Lively-cancelled-interview-Ends-film.html The NYT didn’t just speculate—they posted receipts showing how Justin Baldoni’s PR team went scorched-earth, framing Lively as the villain. For those claiming PR manipulation isn’t real or that celebs can’t buy articles, how can anyone explain this? This isn’t just my “big fat pile of bullshit” opinion—receipts are literally everywhere: - In 2009, NBC News was called out for shady “checkbook journalism,” paying for an exclusive interview: https://www.spj.org/nbc-news-checkbook-journalism-crossed-ethical-line/ In 2017, celebs were exposed for promoting undisclosed paid content on platforms like Facebook, showing how influence gets bought and sold: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/nov/24/george-takei-pay-to-promote-social-media-facebook-mic-slate-refinery29 So, yeah, the rules should prevent this type of thing, but the reality? Celebs do buy articles—and sometimes they even buy entire narratives.

They all have paid articles, even independent ones.

[third-new]

The Solidarity Award was canceled because of Blake Lively's claims

Getty Images Justin Baldoni accepted the Women's Solidarity Award in New York roughly two weeks before the allegations were made by his co-star Blake Lively The Women's Solidarity Award recently awarded to Justine Baldoni has been revoked after the actor was accused by his It Ends With Us co-star Blake Lively of sexual harassment and mounting a campaign to “destroy” her reputation. Baldoni was…

[metacriticc-news]

Justin Baldoni Award Canceled After Blake Lively Legal Action

Justin Baldoni’s award for “advocating for women and girls” has been withdrawn following Blake Lively’s complaint against him, his team and Wayfarer Studios. On the 9th of December It ends with us director and co-star received the Voices of Solidarity Award from Vital Voices. The honor celebrates “remarkable men who have shown courage and compassion in speaking out on behalf of women and…

[magxit]

I don’t get why that is people’s first response to the Justin Baldoni allegations. Yes, they had a plantation wedding, they acknowledged it, took responsibility apologized, made donations. They were held accountable for that. So JB gets to be held accountable for this situation.

I don't think you can equate the two at all and that is what is so upsetting. People are like so what if JB is an abuser Blake deserves to get knocked down because she is so out of touch just like Taylor got canceled in 2016.