Did Justin Baldoni Smear Blake Lively, or Is the Media Just Out of Touch With Organic Hate Trains?

The basis of this claim nested on a few facts: Lively had clashed with Baldoni during filming of It Ends With Us, and documented evidence like the Demands for Return to Production document insinuating that Justin Baldoni and Jamey Heath acted inappropriately on many separate occasions, which almost caused her to quit production of the film.

Around the premiere of the film, fans began to speculate that there was a rift between the cast and the director, Justin Baldoni, because of the noticeable distance between them and a mass unfollowing between the cast and Baldoni on social media. As that speculation swirled, Lively began to get a ton of bad press that snowballed into a pile-on via social media and unflattering headlines. Lively cites in her legal complaint that this bad press was a result of an astroturfing campaign committed by TAG — a PR agency Baldoni and Wayfarer hired to take control of the narrative, and retaliate against Lively for her allegations of sexual harassment. 

Lively cited “suspicious” social media engagement and a sudden wave of anti-Lively sentiment online as reasons to suspect the negative press was orchestrated by Baldoni's team rather than an authentic reaction. With over 25 years in the industry, working on hit shows and films and married to one of Hollywood’s favorite leading men, Lively had a longstanding positive reputation. Lively argued the sudden shift in her public image, seemingly overnight, was coordinated. Text messages were cited in Lively's CRD complaint and supplied to The New York Times to support this framing.

The Times ran a hit piece against Baldoni on December 21, 2024 titled “‘We Can Bury Anyone’: Inside a Hollywood Smear Campaign.” That’s just one day after Lively filed her CRD complaint. For someone claiming to be the victim of a smear campaign, it’s a little odd for one of the most trusted journalistic publications in the world to have exclusive access to a confidential legal document, along with what they claimed were “thousands of pages of text messages and emails” they claimed to have reviewed, and a fully developed investigative article just one day after filing a bombshell lengthy legal complaint. 

Justin Baldoni claims in his lawsuit against The Times, that their article’s headline and premise was categorically false and defamatory. He added that if The Times did have access to the thousands of private communications it claimed to have obtained, they would have “incontrovertible evidence that it was Lively, not [Baldoni and his associates] who engaged in a calculated smear campaign."

TikTok sleuths then uncovered a new juicy detail that has proved problematic for both Lively and The Times’ narrative that it was Baldoni who colluded with the media to tarnish Lively’s image. The Times’ hosted composite images for the article that contained URLs as early as five days before Lively’s complaint was filed with the California Civil Rights Department on December 20. TikToker, goojiepooj, took notice that some of the image URLs were dated “2024-12-16,” leading many to speculate that the date suggests The Times had access to Lively’s complaint, and potentially had their article ready to go before the complaint was even filed, let alone made public. This would support Baldoni’s lawyer Bryan Freedman’s account that The Times was working with Lively for months. Even worse for The Times is Baldoni’s claim that they failed to give him ample time to respond to the article before it was published. They reportedly reached out to Baldoni in the late evening on the Friday before Christmas, providing him only 14 hours to respond to a bombshell 4,000 word story, and then without warning, published the story two hours before the deadline they had given him to respond. 

The New York Times Gets Caught Up in Legal Dispute Over Alleged Cherry Picked & Doctored Text Messages

The Times helped Lively advance her narrative against Justin Baldoni without a lot of skepticism. The bedrock of their claims rests on text evidence that Baldoni’s team alleges were cherry-picked to omit crucial context and in some cases, even doctored to alter the message’s tone and comedic subtext. The article came under fire for its lacking use of qualifiers like "alleged" or "reportedly" to properly convey unverified claims. It's perfectly plausible that The Times acted without malice and earnestly believed they had sufficient evidence to present the article in the way they did, but now that Baldoni has sued them for libel, false light invasion of privacy, promissory fraud, and breach of implied-in-fact contract, and brought his receipts, they’re coming under fire. 

Despite the Times’ insistence that Baldoni “emerged unscathed,” they do admit his talent agency WME dropped him after the publication of the article. Baldoni claims it was a result of pressure from Ryan Reynolds, who is represented by the same agency, smearing him as a “sexual predator” and demanding that they drop him, which WME denies. Baldoni was also stripped of a Voices of Solidarity Award given to him to honor "remarkable men who have shown courage and compassion in advocating on behalf of women and girls" after harassment allegations surfaced via Lively’s CRD complaint. It’s safe to say that the article, along with Lively’s legal filings, resulted in some real damage to his career and reputation.

The New York Times’ Texts & Documents Didn’t Paint the Full Picture

Justin Baldoni’s lawyer Bryan Freedman responded to The Times’ portrayal of TAG’s PR strategy as a retaliatory smear campaign, claiming that Baldoni hired TAG solely as a defensive measure ahead of the film’s premiere "due to the multiple demands and threats made by Ms. Lively during production which included her threatening to not showing up to set, threatening to not promote the film, ultimately leading to its demise during release, if her demands were not met."

Concerned about potential attacks from Lively and Reynolds, Melissa Nathan’s PR agency, TAG, helped prepare for worst-case scenarios but deliberately avoided aggressive or proactive tactics, such as astroturfing, he argues—contrary to claims made by Lively and The Times. Baldoni argues that the full context of communications supports his account, showing that TAG’s role was limited to correcting misinformation verifying facts, while explicitly rejecting strategies like planting stories or using bots to manipulate public sentiment. Texts provided in Baldoni's lawsuit against The NYT appear to show a contradiction between the narrative The NYT presented and the truth.

Referencing an initial planning document sent to Wayfarer Studios and Justin Baldoni by Melissa Nathan, The NYT reported that Nathan suggested media talking points, including claims that Blake Lively had leveraged an imbalance of power to seize creative control of the film. The article continued, "But Mr. Baldoni wanted more," before quoting text messages in which Baldoni said, "Not in love with the document they sent." He added, "Not sure I'm feeling the protection I felt on the call."

According to The NYT, publicist Jennifer Abel relayed Baldoni’s frustration to Nathan, stating, "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 by reassuring Abel that she understood but warned, "We can't send over all of the work we would do because that could get us in a lot of trouble." The article then highlighted a series of text messages from Nathan: "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,"and the now-infamous "You know we can bury anyone." This last message was featured twice in The NYT article and appears to have inspired the article’s provocative title. 

Taken at face value, these texts suggest an effort to go after Blake Lively, reinforcing Lively’s CRD complaint characterization that Baldoni found the PR plan "insufficiently aggressive." However, Baldoni’s lawsuit insists that when viewed in full context, these conversations show a defensive strategy, not an attack. The lawsuit argues that "Baldoni consistently expressed his desire to avoid harming Lively and protect the film but also recognized a legitimate need for public relations protection in light of Lively's false and damaging claims."

Neither The Times article nor Lively’s complaint included Abel’s full response to Baldoni’s concerns about the PR strategy. In the first part of the conversation, Abel reassured him that "the truth is your defense," emphasizing that extensive records and witnesses could support his position. She also acknowledged that, as Lively increasingly excluded him from the film’s promotion and premiere, they needed to prepare for potential escalation: "It’s a good thing if we all prepare for the worst outcome because then if and when it’s not as bad, we are OVER prepared."

Another omission concerns Nathan’s "we can bury anyone" comment, which was preceded by her stating, "Things were twisting and turning because we don’t know their moves." Abel responded, "We can’t be proactive as we have no idea what she will come out with." The lawsuit suggests that the full exchange reflects uncertainty and caution, rather than an explicit plan to "bury" Lively.

Other texts further support Baldoni’s claim that his PR team was acting defensively. In one exchange, Melissa Nathan clarified that TAG does not use bots, citing an Instagram post she suspected had been manipulated by Lively’s team: "Sharing with you a perfect example of why we don't use 'bots,'" she wrote, pointing out how "every single comment suddenly skews in her favor in a nonsensical way."

Baldoni also expressed concern about optics, asking, "How can we say somehow that we are not doing any of this - it looks like we are trying to take her down." Nathan reassured him, insisting Lively’s team was responsible: "They are doing all of this themselves, and it's really obvious." She then referenced a hate comment on Lively's post, and claimed "this is bots." Baldoni reiterated his worries: "Ok, please monitor. What I’m more worried about is that it looks like we are planting these stories, which is not true, obviously." Abel then chimed in, reminding him that thousands of people were organically reacting to Lively's actions and interviews.

A lengthy statement was reportedly put out by Abel in a private PR & Marketing Facebook group. She reiterated Baldoni's account that they never engaged in a retaliatory smear campaign, commenting, “No negative press was ever facilitated, no social combat plan, although we were prepared for it as it’s our job to be ready for any scenario, but we didn’t have to implement anything because the internet was doing the work for us."

Smear Campaign or Organic Backlash?

Baldoni's lawsuit reiterated that the backlash against Lively's marketing stunts were organic and not orchestrated by himself or his team. The public found Lively's tone deaf flippant comments and inappropriate promotion of alcohol and hair care products to be tone deaf. For example, Lively used the promotion of the film to promote her hair care line and alcohol brand, despite the well-known connection between alcohol and domestic violence. The notion that the criticism of Lively's tone deaf promotional approach emerged organically was corroborated by messages in the TAG team group chat. 

An unnamed TAG team member texted the chat, "We didn't tell Jed to go after the idea that her promo was inappropriate. That happened organically." After posting a screenshot of Lively’s Instagram caption, "Grab your friends, wear your florals," a TAG member emphasized, "Like come on. We had NOTHING to do with that" and relayed a comment from someone named Zoe who reportedly said "this is a crazy way to market this movie." Nathan also sent Baldoni Instagram posts of Lively’s film promotion and said, “You did not do any of these we did not do any of these this is all organic” and attributed the backlash to her tone deafness and foolish decision not to highlight a DV shelter.

Texts from a Wayfarer Studios group chat labeled "Tag Team" suggest that Baldoni and his team were not actively planting negative stories. In one exchange, Jamey Heath shared an article from The Hollywood Reporter that praised Lively for advancing the conversation around domestic violence, expressing his approval: "Let her get a win. It would be nice to have a Sony executive praise Justin." Meanwhile, screenshots of messages from Baldoni show that he wanted to emphasize the voices of survivors.

Another misrepresented exchange involved a Daily Mail article on Lively, where The Times quoted Abel saying, "Wow. You really outdid yourself with this piece," and Nathan replying, "That's why you hired me, right? I'm the best." However, Baldoni’s lawsuit reveals that both The Times and Lively’s CRD complaint omitted a crucial emoji—an upside-down face 🙃—which indicated sarcasm. The lawsuit also notes that Nathan had just learned about the article from a reporter and had messaged, "Damn. This is not fair because it’s also not me," followed by, "Everything now looks like it's me." This suggests Nathan was not involved in planting the story.

By omitting the sarcastic emoji and the preceding messages, The Times framed the exchange as an admission of guilt. This selective editing raises questions about whether the newspaper relied too heavily on Lively’s CRD complaint without independently verifying key details. Another section highlighted a portion of an exchange between Nathan and Abel, where Nathan is quoted saying, "He doesn't realise how lucky he is right now." The context provided in Lively’s CRD complaint sounds even worse—only showing the following messages from Nathan: “He doesn't realise how lucky he is right now we need to press on him jus thow fucking lucky” and “The whispering in the ear the sexual connotations like Jesus fucking Christ Other members feeling uncomfortable watching it I mean there is just so much.” 

However, her lawsuit conveniently excludes the very following text from Nathan, which reads, “Doesn’t matter if it’s not true.” Abel responded “I know, I don’t think they get that. They think the truth wins.” A few texts down, Abel says, "And I'm like, we are dealing with a psychopath who literally called you a sexual predator. Lets be happy with ‘difficult.’" The surrounding texts reveal the person they were talking about discussing was Leslie Sloane, and their attempts to correct the record on what they saw as defamatory articles.

The Sloane Allegations

The lawsuit also accuses Blake Lively’s publicist, Leslie Sloane, of planting negative stories about Baldoni in Page Six, the Daily Mail, and the New York Post, including false allegations of HR complaints on set. Sloane denied these claims in a statement to Deadline.

Daily Mail reporter James told Melissa Nathan that Sloane claimed the entire cast hated Baldoni and that it had "nothing to do with Blake." He also alleged, "Now she's saying that Blake was sexually assaulted. Why wouldn’t she say anything about that then? She knows she is full of shit." Baldoni’s lawyer Bryan Freedman has accused Sloane of working directly with The Times, and sharing illegally obtained text messages that omitted crucial context to alter their meaning. Baldoni’s lawsuit claims The Times’ article deliberately omits a critical player in what they call the manufactured controversy: Stephanie Jones. 

Jones is a former publicist for Wayfarer Studios who Baldoni claims betrayed him and his team by leaking confidential communications to the Daily Mail and later facilitating the subpoena process that fueled the infamous Times hit piece and Lively's CRD complaint. Jones was hired by Baldoni to handle PR strategy, but was fired after allegedly leaking information despite explicit instructions not to. The lawsuit points to Jones alleged history of retaliating against former clients, and when Jennifer Abel left her firm Jonesworks, Jones allegedly forced her to surrender her electronic devices and later used her text messages as part of Lively's legal campaign. Baldoni argues that Jones aligned herself with Lively for personal and professional gain, leveraging the leaks to damage his reputation while securing favor with more powerful Hollywood figures.

The Times Implied Other Lively Detractors Were Working for Baldoni’s PR Team 

The Times also attempted to discredit Norwegian entertainment reporter Kjersti Flaa's personal unsavory experiences with Blake Lively by implying a connection between her and Melissa Nathan. The article’s framing undermined Flaa's experience with a taunting and unprofessional Lively in a resurfaced interview Flaa had posted amidst the heavy scrutiny on Lively in the media. Lively seemed to become upset when Flaa made a comment on Lively’s baby bump, which spurred on a passive aggressive double teaming by Lively and Parker Posey.

The Times wrote, "It wasn’t the first time she had posted a video aligned with a client of Ms. Nathan. In 2022, in the midst of Mr. Depp’s legal battle with Ms. Heard, Ms. Flaa posted clips of her interviews with the actor, tagged #JusticeForJohnnyDepp." Flaa complained on her YouTube channel that The Times initially failed to reached out to her for a comment and only updated the story post-publication after she emailed them. The NYT updated the article to reflect Flaa’s insistence that she had not participated in any orchestrated effort to harm Ms. Lively's reputation, and that the video was "neither coordinated nor influenced by anyone associated with the alleged campaign."

This is just intellectually dishonest, in my estimation. It isn’t beyond the realm of possibility that someone would feel emboldened by the tide of public opinion turning on a celebrity you’ve had a bad experience with. Much like survivors of abuse might not feel comfortable sharing their allegations until other victims come forward, so too do people who’ve been wronged by popular and powerful people feel emboldened by shifting public opinion to finally share their anecdotes with said celebrity. Is that not a completely normal and likely scenario? I’ve watched a number of Flaa’s videos on her YouTube channel. In recent years, her content has criticized out-of-touch celebrities and the regrettable push to believe all women post-#MeToo. A person possessing these beliefs is inherently more likely to question the veracity of such serious allegations. What’s more likely—that Nathan hired Flaa to run defense for all of her clients, or that someone who believed in the innocence of Johnny Depp is likely to hear out Justin Baldoni’s side of the story before taking Lively’s claims as fact?

Final Thoughts

While I wouldn’t be surprised if Baldoni’s team has downplayed the extent to which they were prepared to “bury” Lively, (after all, is that not a PR crisis team’s job?), and while I certainly couldn’t blame anyone for wanting to fire back if false allegations were made against them, the full context of communications does seem to affirm that things never came to that. Baldoni was extremely vigilant about not stoking fires with bots or planting stories, and Lively’s erratic and tone deaf press tour certainly didn’t need any assistance from comically evil public relations professionals.