Fool me once, shame on Baldoni
Fool me twice, shame on Melissa Nathan and her incredibly effective PR team
Good evening to everyone except Justin Baldoni. Two days ago the NYT dropped a piece about the smear campaign he allegedly financed against Blake Lively. The Nazgul-like PR team was hired as a countermeasure should Lively release her complaints about the toxic set environment of IT ENDS WITH US. How much does it cost to turn the tide against one of the prettiest and generally least controversial persons on the planet1 ? About $175k. Plus an extra $75k for the “creation of social fan engagement.”
Baldoni is cooked. Even in the most generous version of this, one where the set conditions were over blown and Blake is spending triple what Baldoni spent on her own slanted narrative, the optics are still bad. It looks like Baldoni tried to silence, nay, “bury” a woman who fought for safer working conditions. The caricature of a man-bun sporting, woke podcaster (whose whole schtick is redefining masculinity and encouraging men to ‘do better’) spending over 250 thousand dollars to tarnish the reputation of the Homecoming Queen of Hollywood, is just too delightful for the internet to bear.
Admittedly I’ve been eating up the drama with a ladle sized spoon. And in a morbid way enjoying the dizzying whip-lash of public sentiment. The same IG-ers who were quick to quote the “Blake Lively is a mean girl” memes, are now reposting the Sisterhood statement and demanding Baldoni’s head. But I was less amused when I read that Baldoni hired Melissa Nathan, the same crisis management team that previously worked with Johnny Depp during his legal battles with Amber Heard.2 Hiring a PR team to carry out character assassination isn’t unique, but the effectiveness of their online smear tactics are… concerning.
Last month I listened to a podcast called “Who Trolled Amber?”3 The series takes a critical look at the media’s role in shaping the narrative around the Depp vs. Heard trial and detailed how online campaigns influence public opinion of real-world events.
Much like the Baldoni-Lively drama, I consumed the Depp vs. Heard case through social media. I didn’t watch the actual court proceedings, but I formed a soft assessment based on re-posted clips and friends’ opinions. My IRL and online acquaintances all said, “two toxic people in a bad relationship, they’re both awful,” so I believed that as well. I didn’t buy a pallet of Sauvage in support of Johnny, and I didn’t boycott Aquaman in protest of Amber. But some people surely did. And in “Who Trolled Amber?,” host Alexi Mostrous questioned why a woman who clearly did suffer domestic violence at the hands of her ex-husband, was painted with such a wide demonizing brush. Why was public sentiment so anti-Herd and pro-Depp? Well, because someone paid to push the public in that direction.
The podcast reveals orchestrated, coordinated online attacks of Heard’s character, edited viral clips of the courtroom proceedings to shape a particular narrative, influencers incentivized to create anti-Heard content, Saudi-based bots that posted hundreds of times a day with #JusticeForJohnny and #AmberHeardIsALiar hashtags. And guys, um, it worked. Amber lost the US-based defamation case, despite previously winning the liable case in the UK. Amber can’t get auditions and is hiding in Spain trying to rebuild her career, while Johnny’s ridiculous cologne contract was renewed. (Who is buying Sauvage? Club promoters? Arms dealers?)
It’s easy to accept that the rich and powerful can purchase public opinion - but Who Trolled Amber? explained that in the social-media information age, anyone can afford a harassment campaign. Jim Waterson, the Media Editor at The Guardian is quoted saying,
"You don't need thousands of dollars to buy an online harassment campaign. Sometimes, all it takes is a few hundred dollars to unleash a flood of hate, amplify targeted messages, or boost disinformation."
Episode 5 of the podcast discusses a Florida manslaughter case where a teenager was responsible for killing a mother and a baby in a car accident. Despite the teen being very clearly at fault, a viral pro-defendant sentiment emerged online. The kid isn’t a monster, but he was a dumb teen who drag raced his friend and devastatingly ended up killing two people. It’s tragic all around. But the viral element of the case was not organic. It was orchestrated. Allegedly not by the teen’s family, but they do suspect that a friend, or someone close to the family, purchased online support. For probably a few hundred dollars, people across the world were making TikToks in support of this Florida teen who killed two people. Do you see why I’m starting to sweat? I could be the victim in a car accident one day, and the other team could purchase public sympathy for almost zero dollars. I could get divorced, and my ex could buy a smear campaign before I’m done filing papers. I can already see the same IG accounts that yo-yoed between Blake and Baldoni, re-posting stories siding with my vengeful ex during a custody battle.
And it goes without saying that these attacks are especially effective when targeting women.4 Depp vs Heard isn’t just celebrities flinging shit at each other, it’s a blueprint for online harassment campaigns that anyone can copy, and they have. As eyeballs have shifted away from legacy media, smear campaigns have been democratized thanks to social media, Ai, and globalization. You don’t have to be a media tycoon or even particularly wealthy to sway public perception. You just need a minimum wage job and a vendetta.
So… yes. I am still consuming the IT ENDS WITH US drama. A bit more cautiously after putting these thoughts to paper. For now I’m team Blake (you can’t fight the Sisterhood, and I default to believing women). But what the hell do I know?? Only what the algorithm and most powerful PR team wants me to I guess.
PS - Happy Holidays!! Was that too stressful for an end of year article?? Sorry- I wish all celeb feuds were sans larger implications! I’ll write something dumb and fun soon. Hoping to bring you more HFC and likely a rebrand in the new year! Thanks for reading/ sharing/ caring! xoxo
omitting that one plantation wedding…
Melissa Nathan previously worked with Jonny Depp who, “successfully sued [Amber] Heard for defamation, and the trial became a spectacle amid suspicions of an online campaign to damage her credibility.” - NYT
Who Trolled Amber? is hosted by investigative journalist Alexi Mostrous, who also created “Sweet Bobby,” a Tortoise Media podcast that I’ve listened to twice because it’s one of the craziest most bone-chilling cat-fishing stories I’ve ever heard.
“It’s actually sad because it just shows you have people really want to hate on women.” - Baldoni’s PR team congratulating each other on the success of their anti-Blake campaign.