Flooding the zone against Blake Lively

This article is free with reader support. If you want to read paywalled stories, join the members-only chat, and support my journalism, consider a $5 subscription! Or subscribe for free.

Welcome back to Spitfire News!

This is part two of my three-part series about Blake Lively, misogyny, and media manipulation. You can read the first part here. Part one is about the conversations that are being suppressed on social media and the broader implications of those tactics.

Today, I’m writing about the opposite. There are a dizzying number of narratives being amplified about this case, the loudest of which distract from and distort Lively’s allegations. After Lively sued her former co-star and director Justin Baldoni in December for sexual harassment and retaliation, he countersued her for defamation.

Baldoni and his lawyer Bryan Freedman embarked on an aggressive media campaign, releasing video, audio, and more text messages from behind the scenes of It Ends With Us, Baldoni’s blockbuster adaptation of the bestselling novel. Team Baldoni created a website with almost 400 pages of timelines and documents. Freedman appeared in on-camera interviews and provided endless statements to the press. These extrajudicial defenses have played a major role in shaping the conversation about the case online—and Lively’s lawyers have called them defamatory.

Team Baldoni’s strategy reminds me of a phrase from Steve Bannon, the former Breitbart News executive, presidential campaign manager, and senior counselor to Donald Trump who spent four months in prison. In a 2018 Bloomberg interview with journalist Michael Lewis, shortly after he was ousted from the Trump White House, Bannon said “The Democrats don’t matter. The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.”

In the same story, Lewis quoted Bannon fretting about the Me Too movement, which had gained enormous steam in the previous six months. “The top seven stories today are all guys getting blown up,” Bannon said. “And these are not small guys.”

“It’s not Me Too. It’s not just sexual harassment. It’s an anti-patriarchy movement,” Bannon continued. “Time’s up on 10,000 years of recorded history. This is coming. This is real.” 

Seven years later, as it turned out, Bannon’s strategy to get Trump elected was also used to combat support for sexual assault and harassment allegations (including ones made against Trump). Lawyers, journalists, pundits, and publicists have banded together to protect their clients and the status quo by flooding the zone around these cases with shit.

Crisis works

As Bannon led Trump’s 2016 campaign, a star publicist at a firm called Hiltzik Strategies represented Trump’s daughter Tiffany. The publicist was Melissa Nathan, who would rise to the level of executive vice president at Hiltzik before leaving to open her own firm, The Agency Group, in June 2024. She co-led Baldoni’s crisis PR team and is a party in both lawsuits. 

Hiltzik is a well-known crisis PR firm that has represented Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and Johnny Depp, who reportedly moved to TAG with Nathan. She represented Depp during his 2022 trial against Amber Heard, where the same playbook working against Lively was deployed.

At Hiltzik, Nathan also worked alongside Hope Hicks. Nathan spoke fondly of her after Hicks was picked to be Trump's press secretary in 2015. Senator Dianne Feinstein requested all of Nathan’s communications with Cambridge Analytica, the right-wing data firm connected to Bannon that collected Facebook data on voters.

Fast forward to the summer of 2024 and Nathan was talking to journalists and running social media strategy for Baldoni. Then, the premiere of It Ends With Us spiraled into backlash against Lively. In her suit, Lively accused Nathan of leading a retaliatory smear campaign. Baldoni’s countersuit denied doing so and said the social media response was organic.

In text messages obtained by Lively and published in the New York Times, Nathan reportedly said to Baldoni’s other publicist Jennifer Abel, “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” and “you know we can bury anyone.” 

According to the Times, in other texts, Nathan discussed her conversations with reporters at outlets like The Daily Mail and Page Six, where her sister Sara covered entertainment. In August, Nathan told Abel that the “four majors” (possibly referring to Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline, and The Wrap) were “standing down” on reporting on an HR complaint on the set of It Ends With Us. Instead, most of these outlets covered the social media backlash against Lively.

In addition to Lively’s suit, Nathan and Abel are also being sued by Baldoni’s former publicist Stephanie Jones. She alleged that Abel, while working for Jones, set up a competing practice with Nathan and stole clients like Baldoni out from under Jones. Jones also accused Nathan and Abel of planting negative stories about her and defaming her with “fake social media accounts” online.

Jones’ allegations are similar to a situation involving another one of Nathan’s famous clients, the A-list rapper Drake. Back in 2017, a French artist named Sophie Brussaux discovered she was pregnant. She believed Drake was the father. 

The scene, as set by TMZ, was ugly. Lewd images from Brussaux’s adult entertainment career were dug up and weaponized against her. Texts of Drake asking Brussaux to get an abortion were published. Drake’s unnamed representative told TMZ the child’s paternity was up for debate and said Brussaux “has a very questionable background” and “may have problems getting into the United States.” The child, born five months later, is Drake’s son Adonis Graham. He’s now seven.

Jonathan Hay was Brussaux’s publicist at the start of 2017, and by May he was working with Nathan, according to emails he shared with me. That month, Nathan sent Hay a statement written on Brussaux’s behalf to send to TMZ and other outlets and asked Hay to forward other queries related to Brussaux to her. 

But when more conflicting information was published about Brussaux and Drake in TMZ, Hay said he was blamed by Drake’s camp. In an email over a year later, Hay asked Nathan to clear up the rumor. TMZ had reported that Brussaux said there was a paternity test confirming Adonis was Drake’s son, while Drake denied that a paternity test had been taken.

In his email to Nathan, Hay wrote, “I'm not the one who leaked this about Sophie” and, “a source within Drake's camp [says] that it's me that is doing this with Sophie.” Hay said that Brussaux eventually stopped working with him and only worked with Nathan.

In Jones’ lawsuit, she said that Nathan and Abel participated in a smear campaign against Lively, then “used the crisis as an opportunity to drive a wedge between Jones and Baldoni, and to publicly pin blame for this smear campaign on Jones.” 

Hay was unsurprised to read the allegations against Nathan in December. “Now the industry people are starting to see it,” he said.

‘Into oblivion’

In their fight against Lively, Baldoni and Nathan obtained legal representation from a notorious figure in Hollywood and media: Bryan Freedman. His other clients include Kevin Spacey, Tucker Carlson, David Dobrik, Megyn Kelly, and Perez Hilton, just to name a few. Kelly and Hilton have both vigorously defended Baldoni on their media platforms.  

Freedman previously represented Kelly in a successful fight for the remainder of her $69 million NBC contract when her show was canceled after she defended blackface. When he recently appeared on Kelly’s podcast, Freedman told her that he and Baldoni were going to sue Lively “into oblivion,” which went viral as a sound bite.

In a January 21 letter and attached exhibits, Lively’s lawyers submitted a list of eleven of Freedman’s on-the-record statements and interviews with at least seven outlets, including Kelly. They were sent to Judge Lewis Liman just one month after the Times article that publicized Lively’s allegations. The “surely incomplete” list, her lawyers wrote, contained “repeated instances of Mr. Freedman making unprofessional and false statements.”

Lawyers like Freedman and publicists like Nathan often successfully amplify narratives about their clients in the press by supplying eager journalists with exclusive statements and information. This kind of access journalism happens across beats and especially in politics, media, and entertainment. Lively’s lawsuit didn’t just pull back the curtain on social media manipulation. It also detailed some of the behind-the-scenes practices in mainstream media. People who can afford lawyers and publicists have a huge advantage in coverage. That prerequisite favors people in power—perpetrators, not victims. 

Lively can also afford a team like Baldoni’s, and she has used her resources for everything from the Times article to obtaining Abel’s text messages to mounting new defenses against Baldoni. But the media narratives about the case still tend to fall in Baldoni’s favor, even though Lively is a bigger celebrity. 

Misogyny overcomes Lively’s privilege. Despite all evidence to the contrary, people still believe that women have something to gain from accusing men of harassment. Because there’s a false assumption that women always benefit from making allegations and accused men always suffer, allegations are viewed as attacks. Victims who speak up are viewed as mutual perpetrators. 

In reality, victims always suffer from making workplace sexual harassment allegations, and male perpetrators frequently benefit from being accused. They gain supporters they didn’t have before, they receive preferential treatment and are rewarded during judicial processes, and they can reach new heights during future redemption arcs. 

When victims speak up, they may receive an initial wave of support within the first few days of coming forward. But as the wave recedes, the opposition led by their perpetrator and their enablers ramps up. The victim’s allegations are diluted by the perpetrator’s campaign. The case begins to appear gray. The perpetrators gain more support as cases progress toward official decision-making.

This cycle has literally been illustrated in The Hollywood Reporter’s coverage of Lively and Baldoni. The trade magazine’s recent cover featured Lively aiming a smartphone in a slingshot at Baldoni while Freedman stood in the background. Another piece from the magazine, an op-ed by James Hibberd, framed Lively and Baldoni as pursuing “mutually assured destruction.”

“If you’re having serious conversations about ‘astroturfing’ and ‘crumbs,’ or erasing tell-tale emojis from leaked texts, you’ve taken a wrong turn somewhere,” Hibberd wrote, positioning Lively’s smear campaign allegations as equally dubious as Baldoni’s defense that she omitted an emoji from one text exhibit in her lawsuit. (The existence of astroturfing campaigns like the kind I explored in my last piece should frighten everyone.)

The Hollywood Reporter has even written an entire standalone piece about why Freedman “Can’t Lose.” “While Freedman feeds his favored press outlets tip-offs on filings and colorful statements, confident that friendly voices on social platforms will in turn amplify his message, those who run counter to his interests know they’ll face his ire,” wrote Gary Baum. 

Meanwhile, the judge in the Lively and Baldoni case warned Freedman in February after he submitted the “Timeline of Relevant Events” document that was also posted on Baldoni’s “Lawsuit Info” website. “The law is pretty clear you can't just attach a factual narrative,” Judge Liman said. “The court does have sanction power if it looks like the docket is being abused.”

In October 2020, Depp’s lawyer Adam Waldman was kicked off the Virginia defamation case that went to trial in 2022 after he breached a protective order and disseminated audio, photos, and witness declarations to social media users. The leaks were still viewed hundreds of millions of times. There was an overwhelming possibility that the unsequestered jury in Depp v. Heard was influenced by Waldman’s unethical media campaign. 

The same could happen in Lively’s case. Her lawyer said he has sought to compel Freedman to a standard of professional conduct outside court, and the judge has suggested moving the trial forward from its March 2026 date in response to the media coverage. We know from Depp v. Heard that the damage is already done.

The financier

How could Baldoni, who was previously best known for the CW’s Jane the Virgin, afford the rights to It Ends With Us, Nathan and Abel, and now Freedman? In the narrative against Lively, she’s framed as more powerful than him because of her wealth, fame, and industry connections. But as it turns out, Baldoni has access to even deeper pockets. 

The New York Times reported that Baldoni’s production company Wayfarer Studios had ties to his religious organization, Bahá’í. I had never heard of Bahá’í before this, but there are millions of Bahá’í people around the world, with estimates putting the religion up to half the size of Mormonism. 

Baldoni’s parents converted to Bahá’í before he was born, and he grew up in it. He isn’t the only celebrity, either. Rainn Wilson, who played Dwight on The Office, grew up Bahá’í in the 1970s and has used his fame as a vehicle to introduce Bahá’í to people around the world. Wilson has spoken to university students about Bahá’í, written about the religion in his books, and spent years recording podcasts about Bahá’í. Baldoni has posted about Bahá’í on social media and spoken about it in interviews.

In 2021, Baldoni started his own podcast with Bahá’í co-hosts called “Man Enough,” which focused on his platform of combating toxic masculinity. One of his co-hosts, Jamey Heath, is the CEO of Wayfarer Studios and a party in the lawsuits. The other co-host, journalist Liz Plank, quit after Lively’s allegations became public.

The biggest source of funding behind Wayfarer, It Ends With Us, and Baldoni’s legal defense is reportedly multi-billionaire Steve Sarowitz, who “became a Baha’i” in 2015 and regularly leads services at the palatial Bahá’í House of Worship in Wilmette, Illinois. Down the street are the offices for the Wayfarer Foundation, a tax-exempt “Baha’i-inspired organization” Sarowitz started. He and Baldoni are two of three board members. Sarowitz is also a party to the lawsuits.

In Lively’s lawsuit, she alleged that Sarowtiz “divulged at the Film’s New York premiere on August 6, 2024, that he was prepared to spend $100 million to ruin the lives of Ms. Lively and her family.” She also alleged that Sarowitz said, “I will protect the studio like Israel protected itself from Hamas. There were 39,000 dead bodies. There will be two dead bodies when I’m done.”

On the day that Lively filmed a scene where she was giving birth, she alleged in her lawsuit that Baldoni and Heath pressured her to simulate full nudity. That day, her suit said that Sarowitz “flew in for one of his few set visits.” During the scene, with her legs spread in stirrups, Lively said she had to ask multiple times to get something to cover herself with between takes. She also said Baldoni hired his Bahá’í “‘best friend’” to play the role of the OB-GYN, which Lively’s suit described as “invasive and humiliating.” 

Sarowitz is referred to in Baldoni’s lawsuit as “the Film’s financier,” in a passage that disputes that Sarowitz was physically present during the filming of the birth scene or that he wanted to watch it. Baldoni’s suit says Sarowitz arrived later that day.

In Lively’s lawsuit, Bahá’í is mentioned in text messages on August 9, 2024, as Nathan relays a call she had with her sister at Page Six who covered the on-set “feud rumors” about Lively and Baldoni that day. In a text to Abel, Nathan wrote “Bahai [sic] needs to be out.” 

Baldoni’s lawsuit also mentions Bahá’í, noting that Abel recommended Wayfarer work with Nathan after Nathan told Abel she had heard “a negative story was being ‘shopped’ around to multiple outlets, positioning Baldoni’s religion as a ‘cult.’” 

That hasn’t been the case. In February, The Hollywood Reporter published a story suggesting that Lively’s allegations against Baldoni stemmed from cultural misunderstandings around Bahá’í. The article said that Bahá’í is based on gender equality, even though women cannot serve in its highest institution, the Universal House of Justice.

“Could they both be right?” the article asked in its final sentence about Lively and Baldoni. It’s a common refrain in cases involving sexual harassment allegations. In part three, I’ll further explore how this veneer of neutrality hurts all victims.

Sign up for free to get the next edition in your inbox! If you’re interested in discussing this case and my findings in a members-only chat, please consider subscribing for $5. You’ll also support my journalism and get access to paywalled stories.

In the meantime, here are a few links I wanted to share:

• Taylor Lorenz’s piece about how right-wing influencers like Candace Owens and Megyn Kelly are using Lively and Baldoni to push liberal women toward conservatism is essential reporting.

• Prem Thakker reports for Zeteo that the Department of Homeland Security detained a recent Columbia graduate who helped lead the campus’ Gaza solidarity encampment as Trump intends to violate more constitutional rights.

• Last week I published a piece for members about Adam McIntyre’s YouTube commentary tour that apparently riled up someone who was mentioned in it.

Thanks for reading this far and stay tuned for more!