In what many are calling a blow to journalistic integrity, The New York Times (NYT) finds itself in the crosshairs of a high-stakes defamation lawsuit filed by actor and filmmaker Justin Baldoni.
The $250m lawsuit, which also names Wayfarer Studios and several affiliated parties, challenges the newspaper’s December 2024 article, “We Can Bury Anyone: Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine,” authored by Megan Twohey, Mike McIntire, and Julie Tate.
At the heart of the controversy is Baldoni’s claim that the NYT published a story riddled with inaccuracies, selectively edited evidence, and deliberately distorted facts—a sharp rebuke to the standards expected of an institution often regarded as the gold standard in journalism.
The lawsuit alleges that the NYT gave a platform to unsubstantiated claims by actress Blake Lively, who accused Baldoni and his team of orchestrating a retaliatory smear campaign against her.
According to the legal complaint, the article relied heavily on cherry-picked text messages and emails—some of which, Baldoni’s team asserts, were altered or stripped of critical context.
This, Baldoni argues, created a sensational narrative that painted him as the villain in what he characterizes as an effort by Lively to deflect scrutiny from her own controversial behaviour.
New Allegations Against Lively and Reynolds
The story took an even darker turn as Baldoni filed a second lawsuit directly targeting Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, accusing them of engaging in bullying, spreading falsehoods, and orchestrating a smear campaign.
According to the complaint, Lively fabricated stories of harassment and weaponised these allegations to seize creative control of the film It Ends With Us, sidelining Baldoni and distorting the project’s original purpose.
The legal filings reveal an alleged pattern of manipulative behaviour by Lively, including instances where she reportedly altered her narrative to suit her agenda.
For example, Lively claimed that Baldoni made inappropriate comments about her appearance and forced her into uncomfortable situations during filming.
However, the complaint provides contradictory evidence, including text messages and behind-the-scenes footage, that suggests Lively not only participated willingly in creative discussions but also initiated personal interactions with Baldoni.
Evidence of Fabrications
Baldoni’s complaint cites numerous instances where Lively’s allegations appear to be baseless. One striking example involves Lively’s claims that Baldoni made inappropriate comments during a wardrobe discussion.
However, on-set footage reveals that Baldoni was addressing wardrobe choices for the character Lily Bloom, as part of his directorial responsibilities.
When Lively reportedly misinterpreted these comments, Baldoni apologised repeatedly, yet this incident was later exaggerated in her public allegations.
The complaint further accuses Lively of making false claims about on-set conditions, including allegations of inappropriate behaviour during a simulated birthing scene.
Baldoni’s team asserts that only essential personnel were present during the filming, directly contradicting Lively’s claim that the set was chaotic and unprofessional. Footage from the shoot reportedly confirms Baldoni’s version of events, undermining Lively’s narrative.
Alleged Bullying and Coercion
Baldoni also accuses Lively and Reynolds of using their considerable influence to strong-arm him into relinquishing creative control.
According to the lawsuit, the couple demanded that Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios issue a public apology for “mistakes” they allegedly made during production.
When Baldoni refused, Lively and Reynolds reportedly escalated their efforts, leaking doctored evidence and false allegations to the NYT.
The lawsuit suggests that this campaign was designed to deflect criticism from Lively’s own missteps, including her controversial promotional strategies for the film.
The complaint further details how Lively’s actions derailed the project. Despite being cast as the lead in a film centred on themes of domestic violence, Lively allegedly refused to collaborate with survivor advocacy organisations and instead focused on promoting her own products during press events.
This tone-deaf approach drew significant backlash, which Baldoni’s legal team claims she sought to deflect by smearing him in the press.
A Broader Pattern?
This case raises broader questions about the NYT’s editorial process. How did a story with such serious legal implications clear the layers of review that typically govern investigative reporting?
Critics argue that the newspaper prioritised sensationalism over due diligence, a decision that could have lasting consequences for its reputation.
“The Times didn’t just miss the mark—it threw the rulebook out the window,” said a prominent media ethics expert who reviewed the case. “When you’re reporting on allegations this serious, the burden of proof is sky-high. That’s Journalism 101.”
A Reckoning for the NYT and Lively?
As the lawsuits progress, the central question remains: How did a story this flawed make it to print in one of the world’s most esteemed newspapers?
And what role did Lively’s alleged fabrications play in shaping the narrative? The answers, whatever they may be, could redefine how the public views both the NYT and Lively’s public persona.
For Baldoni, this legal battle is more than just a fight for his reputation; it’s a stand against what he describes as “Hollywood’s most toxic behaviours.”