In Dispute: Lively v Baldoni

This coverage was one-sided and unfairly favored Blake Lively. It only highlighted details that support her claims without looking at the full context. A balanced report should include all the facts, not just selected ones.

For a more complete and fair breakdown, check out Candace Owens on YouTube or BeBetter on TikTok. They review both sides and all the evidence, which shows Justin Baldoni is not guilty of what she claims. In fact, it seems like Lively is the one trying to smear him to take control of this film and future projects.

Good reporting should present both sides so people can make their own informed opinions.

The documentary leans on Lively's side and omitted Baldoni's best counter arguments and proof. It shows Lively's strongest arguments and counters with some of Bladoni's weakest arguments to try to appear unbiased. Lively and Reynolds have taken over this movie while Baldoni is the one who purchases the rights to the movie.

The documentary did not go over any of the messages where Lively is flirting with Baldoni. He always replied shutting down the flirtation attempts. But yet it focuses on him responding to her text messages at 3AM and highlighted that as him being unprofessional.... Just one example of where they focused on a minuet detail so that Lively would look good, instead of talking about evidence that is more significate, but would support Baldoni.

Ultimately it sides with Lively while the trial has not yet begun.

Clearly Blake's teams is behind this nonsense. She is going down and a little documentary that is clearly 'team Blake' won't change that lol. Want to see how the public really feels Blake? Turn on your comments and we will tell you. Everything will come out in discovery so we will wait patiently and hear ALL the evidence (not just cherry picked hot points her pr team thinks will sway the public. Also, Perez Hilton? That would have worked 20 years ago but he is no longer relevant. Should have asked the expert Candace Owen's!! Nice try, go back to the drawing board and see what else you can come up with!

Great to see Perez and Kjersti they did get the truth out but this is 110% one sided. Absolutely hilarious. It's wild to see the producers walked straight up to the line of truth and still missed it by miles. I have his lawsuit memorized so it was obvious and no shock that their "experts" (?) didn't read it. I was dying laughing listening to their impressions of both sides, well one to be honest. The 17 point list had "no more, no more, no more!" so it must all true" was the quote from the blogger from Buzzfeed. Or, could it be that was the name of the charity he donated to? Possibly but now that is up to a jury in 2026. The attorney and buzzfeed chick seem to both agree that the studio will hand editing to the bigger star because it wants to make money and that it's not a crime to do so and who is to say that his edit of the film was even better? Yeah, who is to say? It's not like they had any screenings for test audience's. So, is this Shapiro's way to justify what she did by feeding it to the public she was justified in what she did? Same as how Ryan was justified in all he did because he believed it was true and even if it wasn't it was just his opinion? It could have been better and come clean about what they were trying to do here. Clean up her image and trash his. All anyone wants is authenticity. If you want to be a horrible person just be authentic about it.

Save yourself 45 minutes, go check out something Perez or Kjersti posted this week. Will be so much better than this.

Unless you want a chuckle at ludicrousness and there's nothing else on. Knock yourself out and get ready for some jokes at inappropriate times. Still isnt worth the wasted time.

This documentary significantly oversimplified a complex legal situation. It featured interviews with individuals who presented inaccurate information and constructed a flawed timeline of events. Crucially, the documentary omitted key parties and numerous lawsuits, while downplaying serious allegations. For instance, the extortion claim, a central element of the legal proceedings, was barely addressed and dismissed as an exaggeration.

The documentary relied heavily on the perspectives of three bloggers, a non-expert attorney, and an inexperienced freelancer. This approach lacked investigative journalism and demonstrated a failure to fact-check. The documentarians presented these viewpoints as definitive, without providing any balanced, or well researched information.

It is important to note that there are currently eight complaints filed by six distinct groups of individuals related to this case. The documentary only acknowledged three of these complaints, which shows a significant lack of depth.