An internal NY Times memo took a swipe at other news orgs after Baldoni's libel case was dismissed

Business Insider

a day ago

The New York Times took a swipe at its media brethren as it celebrated the dismissal of Justin Baldoni's libel suit against the paper.
David McCraw, deputy general counsel for the Times, shared an internal memo Tuesday on Slack saying the paper stood by its reporting on the case and was confident the dismissal would hold up if there's a further review.
Then he pivoted: "One final thought: At a time when other news organizations are deciding to settle baseless claims rather than stand up for press freedom in court, the Baldoni decision is a good reminder that The Times has decided that just the opposite approach is needed at this moment in American history."
The memo didn't mention any names but seemed to take aim at a couple of recent high-profile cases.
Disney's ABC News in December reached a $16 million settlement with Donald Trump, who was at that time the president-elect. Trump had sued the network over comments by star anchor George Stephanopoulos, who falsely said Trump had been found "liable for rape" in a suit brought by the columnist E. Jean Carroll. The New York jury had actually found him liable for "sexual abuse." Some lawyers have said they thought ABC News could have fought the suit, as BI previously reported.
McCraw could also have been referring to CBS parent Paramount, which The Wall Street Journal reported is in talks to settle its own $20 billion legal battle with Trump. Last year, Trump sued CBS's "60 Minutes" over its pre-election interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Some legal experts consider the case to be without merit, as BI previously reported, but Paramount is eager to get regulatory approval to complete its long-awaited deal to sell to Hollywood production company Skydance.
It's worth noting that the ABC and CBS cases differ significantly from Baldoni's suit against the Times. The Times wasn't being sued by a sitting president, and legal experts previously told BI that they viewed Baldoni's case as weak from a libel standpoint.
ABC and CBS didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.
In a separate statement, a Times spokesperson also called the Baldoni suit "a meritless attempt to stifle honest reporting."
Baldoni's lawyer, Bryan Freedman, acknowledged in a statement that the court dismissed the defamation-related claims. He would not confirm to BI if Baldoni would refile, but suggested he plans to do so.
"Our journalists went out and covered carefully and fairly a story of public importance, and the court recognized that the law is designed to protect just that sort of journalism," the Times spokesperson said. "We will continue to stand up in court for our journalism and for our journalists when their work comes under attack."
The case has an impact beyond the Times
Lawyers who have followed the case told BI that the ruling had significance beyond the Times.
In Baldoni's $400 million defamation case, he argued that the Times, Lively, and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, conspired to destroy his career with false allegations. Lively filed a federal lawsuit against Baldoni, which accused him of sexual harassment and retaliation.
Media lawyers and PR pros previously told BI they saw the battle between Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively as part of a bigger trend of prominent figures using lawsuits to change public opinion.
A spokesperson for Lively said in a statement to BI that the lawsuit dismissal is "a total victory and a complete vindication" of the actor.
George Freeman, executive director of the Media Law Resource Center, said the dismissal of Baldoni's suit against the Times affirms basic press defenses. The judge referenced that the paper was permitted to report on public documents.
Freeman also said he found it interesting that the judge concluded that the Times "had no obvious motive to favor" Lively's version of the events.
Despite the victory, the case is a reminder of the threat lawsuits pose to media outlets. Many states have media shield laws to discourage baseless defamation cases. But such laws don't always prevent lawsuits from being filed, and they can be burdensome for media outlets — especially those without the resources of the Times.
Damon Dunn, a First Amendment attorney at Clark Hill, said that Baldoni succeeded in getting his side of the story out. And the ruling was a victory for news, but with an asterisk.
"The ruling reinforces their leeway to report complex stories when confronted with conflicting or ambiguous evidence, but it also demonstrates that, win or lose, high-profile litigation drains away newsgathering resources," he said.
Here's McCraw's full memo:
I'm sure by now you have all seen the good news about yesterday's decision to dismiss the libel case against The New York Times that was filed by actor Justin Baldoni and his associates. Our journalists went out and covered carefully and fairly a story of public importance, and the court recognized that the law is designed to protect just that sort of journalism. We will continue to stand up in court for our journalism and for our journalists when their work comes under attack.
Blake Lively went to a California civil rights agency to lodge an official complaint that she had been discriminated against by Justin Baldoni and his associates during the filming of "It Ends With Us" and that they had launched a smear campaign to harm her after the release of the movie. The public has a right to know about official proceedings brought before a government agency, which is why the law in every state protects journalists when they report on an official proceeding. We also reviewed in our reporting a trove of internal messages among Baldoni and his team, which showed that they were behind the online smear campaign launched against Lively. As the judge said, those messages fully supported the facts we presented in our coverage detailing Baldoni's attempt to take Lively down online. Baldoni and his Hollywood lawyers obviously thought they could use the courts to undermine that reporting; they were wrong.
If the plaintiffs decide to appeal, we are confident that today's decision dismissing The Times will stand up on any further review.