Blake Lively and the media

[Dicktar2023]

Consider these two stories, both from our local StL NPR. The first tells the story of how Blake Lively's producers mounted a campaign to smear her early this year during the press for It Ends With Us.

They have the honesty (for what it's worth) to link to their own story from this past summer, which is basically a primer on how a major news organization can be led around by the nose once the ring of social media comments has been embedded in their septum.

I've been complaining the last few years about how many news stories are just "Hey, anonymous people are saying stuff about something on Twitter!" And how obviously dangerous and easily manipulated that kind of journalism is. Here we have a perfect example of how a legitimate news source can do real damage by fecklessly reporting reader comments as though they are news sources.

https://www.npr.org/2024/12/22/nx-s1-52 ... ds-with-us

https://www.npr.org/2024/08/28/nx-s1-50 ... zing-abuse

[Dicktar2023]

My objection to this approach to journalism is that you can start with any premise and then pick and choose tweets to suit your narrative.

But maybe I'm giving modern writers too much credit--maybe that's even too much work. Did the writer of the first article, Alana Wise, even bother to actually check social media, or did someone forward her a bunch of quotes?

[DJ Davis]

My objection to this approach to journalism is that you can start with any premise and then pick and choose tweets to suit your narrative.

But maybe I'm giving modern writers too much credit--maybe that's even too much work. Did the writer of the first article, Alana Wise, even bother to actually check social media, or did someone forward her a bunch of quotes?

I’m gonna be honest I don’t really care about this story but I’m commenting more on this in the general sense. I think I agree with where you’re coming from?

Before social media it was the general statement “some people are saying.” They’d run with stories like that without any real attribution. In the end, it was just a way for certain journalists to cement their own opinions in stories without actually having any on the record sources.

[Dicktar2023]

My objection to this approach to journalism is that you can start with any premise and then pick and choose tweets to suit your narrative.

But maybe I'm giving modern writers too much credit--maybe that's even too much work. Did the writer of the first article, Alana Wise, even bother to actually check social media, or did someone forward her a bunch of quotes?

I’m gonna be honest I don’t really care about this story but I’m commenting more on this in the general sense. I think I agree with where you’re coming from?

Before social media it was the general statement “some people are saying.” They’d run with stories like that without any real attribution. In the end, it was just a way for certain journalists to cement their own opinions in stories without actually having any on the record sources.

Yeah, I don't much care about BL, I'm more concerned about this brand of journalism. In this case, we have clear evidence of how wrong it can go.

I don't remember "some people are saying" stories pre-social media. If you ran a quote in a serious newspaper, it always had attribution (though sometimes anonymous). Even tabloids would pretend to quote a specific source.

Now, though, a writer can scroll through Twitter ot TikTok until they find a post that supports their position, and that's a source.

[3dender]

My objection to this approach to journalism is that you can start with any premise and then pick and choose tweets to suit your narrative.

But maybe I'm giving modern writers too much credit--maybe that's even too much work. Did the writer of the first article, Alana Wise, even bother to actually check social media, or did someone forward her a bunch of quotes?

I’m gonna be honest I don’t really care about this story but I’m commenting more on this in the general sense. I think I agree with where you’re coming from?

Before social media it was the general statement “some people are saying.” They’d run with stories like that without any real attribution. In the end, it was just a way for certain journalists to cement their own opinions in stories without actually having any on the record sources.

Yeah, I don't much care about BL, I'm more concerned about this brand of journalism. In this case, we have clear evidence of how wrong it can go.

I don't remember "some people are saying" stories pre-social media. If you ran a quote in a serious newspaper, it always had attribution (though sometimes anonymous). Even tabloids would pretend to quote a specific source.

Now, though, a writer can scroll through Twitter ot TikTok until they find a post that supports their position, and that's a source.

That phrase wasn't in straightforward reporting, but it has always been a rhetorical device for hack columnists (and any debater really) to launder their own opinions under the guise of some external authority.

[DJ Davis]

My objection to this approach to journalism is that you can start with any premise and then pick and choose tweets to suit your narrative.

But maybe I'm giving modern writers too much credit--maybe that's even too much work. Did the writer of the first article, Alana Wise, even bother to actually check social media, or did someone forward her a bunch of quotes?

I’m gonna be honest I don’t really care about this story but I’m commenting more on this in the general sense. I think I agree with where you’re coming from?

Before social media it was the general statement “some people are saying.” They’d run with stories like that without any real attribution. In the end, it was just a way for certain journalists to cement their own opinions in stories without actually having any on the record sources.

Yeah, I don't much care about BL, I'm more concerned about this brand of journalism. In this case, we have clear evidence of how wrong it can go.

I don't remember "some people are saying" stories pre-social media. If you ran a quote in a serious newspaper, it always had attribution (though sometimes anonymous). Even tabloids would pretend to quote a specific source.

Now, though, a writer can scroll through Twitter ot TikTok until they find a post that supports their position, and that's a source.

That phrase wasn't in straightforward reporting, but it has always been a rhetorical device for hack columnists (and any debater really) to launder their own opinions under the guise of some external authority.

I don’t feel like trying to find any examples, but I am sure I’ve heard that statement used in network news tv reporting. Believe me or not, but I know I have.

[MikoTython]

OK, I read the two stories. It appears that Lively and the other principals, all with a strong financial interest in the film, had encountered what Lively perceived (probably rightly) as sexual harassment, or at the very least boorish sexist behavior. She then threatened to sandbag the film. The studio then prepared a defensive strategy. Did they execute it ? How was she, in fact, smeared ? Maybe I missed that. Is it inappropriate to prepare reputational defense ? Was criticism of her 'light-hearted' approach to promoting the film a smear ?

I don't see, other than the SH/boorish behavior, which was never adjudicated, anything to get that upset about. Now, maybe I am just missing the subtleties, a real possibility. If so, I'd appreciate clarification, in case I'm missing the point.

Or, if there is a larger systematic journalistic complaint encapsulated by this incident, I'm missing that too. Is internet journalism a trash heap ? Sure.

[GelatinousEndive]

As I was cleaning house, I listened to a Megan Kelly interview with Baldoni’ss attorney. He laid it out as this:

Blake Lively started pushing to influence the direction of the film and make it something Baldoni did not want it to be.

Then, apparently some bad blood developed.

But the attorney emphasized that Baldoni was very concerned about sexism on the set, any sexist actions, , etc. He wanted to be protective of her. There was a meeting and they came up with a list of about a dozen items that needed to be corrected that they both agreed to.

And then other stuff I don’t remember although the New York Times article deliberately left much out of context and removed clarifying Punctuation and etc. They did not print what they printed in good faith.

And then Baldoni’s team hired damage control PR people who laid out a strategy that they “might “pursue but they did not pursue, but then news media got wind of that strategy, not one that Baldoni had approved.

So then a lot of other stuff, but I think Blake Lively is kind of an idiot because she’s not even a good actress, right? Does anyone take her seriously? Before this I just knew her as the actress with a giant engagement ring.