BOMBSHELL REVEAL: Blake Lively’s SECRET NYT Confession LEAKED — Admits “It Wasn’t That Bad,” Handing Baldoni His Biggest Legal Victory Yet! Public Turns on Actress Amid Shocking Reversal 

“Blake Lively’s NYT ‘Secret Confession’ Bombshell: Was It Really ‘Not That Bad’?”

By MediaWatch Reporter | June 19, 2025

A startling audio clip—originally broadcast on NPR’s All Things Considered and later spotlighted by gossip columnist Perez Hilton—has unearthed a controversial comment from It Ends With Us star Blake Lively. In it, Lively reportedly dismisses the severity of her own experiences on set, saying “it wasn’t even that bad.” Now, that phrase is fueling fierce debate: did she exaggerate her claims? And were her legal maneuvers, including reaching out to The New York Times, part of a carefully orchestrated strategy?

The “Secret Confession”

In the December 2024 NPR segment featuring reporter Megan Tui, Lively is heard acknowledging to The New York Times that what she faced during filming wasn’t “that bad.” Critics immediately seized on that line, suggesting it directly contradicts her December 31 lawsuit alleging sexual harassment and a calculated smear campaign by director/co-star Justin Baldoni.

Why is this admission so incendiary?

It undercuts Lively’s own narrative. If the harassment “wasn’t that bad,” why sue—particularly when Baldoni responded with countersuits for defamation and extortion?

It challenges the credibility of the smear claims. Lively’s lawsuit hinges on how Baldoni allegedly sought to damage her. If her own words now minimize the issue, that tension fuels skepticism.

It raises questions about media collusion. The audio clip implies Lively may have tipped off The New York Times, which then published a sympathetic profile. Was that news coverage genuinely based on evidence—or part of a broader PR play?

NPR vs. NYT vs. #MeToo: Who Sides with Whom?

“NPR tried to remain objective, presenting the audio without editorializing,” says independent media analyst Dana Ortega. “But the NYT piece had a sympathetic tone, centered on backlash, smoke-filled smears, and emotional fallout.”

Yet even The Times admitted its scope wasn’t exhaustive. Sources told MediaWatch the reporter didn’t independently verify if legal representatives encouraged Lively to go on record. The NPR clip now suggests that may have been the case.

“It’s remarkable… you go behind the scenes… see these people putting into motion a plan she describes as retaliation,” Lively said in the interview. But then: “it wasn’t even that bad.”

That juxtaposition is now being used by Baldoni’s legal team to argue Lively strategically escalated a situation to suit a narrative of persecution.

Reddit, Bots & Narrative Warfare

The NPR revelation has partially reignited old claims of a digital smear campaign against Justin Baldoni. Internal memos leaked to MediaWatch suggest a strategy—as confirmed by witnesses—involving:

Targeted Reddit comment threads. Former moderators on r/itendswithlawsuits allege coordinated activity aimed at shaping sentiment in Lively’s favor.

Online influencers pushing sympathetic angles. Notably around Ryan Reynolds, Lively’s husband, framing Baldoni as the real aggressor.

Reactive reputation management. Baldoni’s legal defense used passive social media monitoring to calm negative commentary—but never proactively seeded counter-narratives.

One Reddit moderator, speaking on condition of anonymity, claimed:

“We saw subreddits fill up with bots posing as fans, repeating the PR line that Justin was ‘abandoning women.’ It was suspicious.”

If Lively publicly labeled what happened “not that bad,” critics argue it supports a case of manipulation—not victimization.

Baldoni Speaks (Quietly)

Justin Baldoni’s team, through spokesperson Blake Camden, framed the NPR audio as vindication:

“Blake’s own words undermine the entire premise of her lawsuit. This wasn’t about justice—it was about PR theater.”

Still, Baldoni declined repeated requests for comment.

Ethical Crossroads: Journalism or PR Tool?

This saga illustrates the fine line between journalism and public relations. Critics of the NYT piece argue the outlet failed to maintain objectivity, essentially repeating team-supplied allegations without thorough fact-checking.

Media oversight groups have asked both NPR and The Times to clarify their processes. NPR maintains the audio tape was edited fairly. The NYT spokesperson responded:

“Our piece followed journalism standards. We provided Lively a right of reply and sought comment from all named parties.”

Where Are We Now?

Legally:

Baldoni’s countersuit for civil extortion and defamation is still alive.

Lively’s original harassment suit remains pending.

Both sides are exploring extensive digital discovery—including texts, emails, and social media posts.

Publicly:

The redemption narrative fueling Lively’s PR campaign now looks tarnished.

Baldoni appears to have regained some credibility among critics.

Digitally:

Reddit threads and social sites are once again polarized, with arguments and evidence rapidly shared, debated, or suppressed.

The scale of bot activity remains under investigation.

What Comes Next

Discovery Phase Begins Anew
Lawyers are requesting full logs from media interactions—emails, calls, internal memos—centered around the NYT article and NPR interview.

Legal Strategy Shift
If playback of the audio is permitted in court, it could change the narrative—and legal products—dramatically.

Media Scrutiny Intensifies
Both NPR and The Times may face public pressure to explain how—and why—they covered the story.

Social Media Fallout
Online discourse has already cooled toward Lively. Some loyal fans are questioning her motives; others double down on her truth.

Potential Settlement?
With the trial looming in March 2026, either side may seek a confidential resolution before the issues fracture further.

Final Takeaways

“It wasn’t that bad” is now a legal bombshell. Lively’s own words challenge her lawsuit’s core position—and give Baldoni’s defense powerful ammunition.

Media ethics are under fire. If prime outlets bypassed critical fact-checking, it raises urgent questions about influence and accountability in celebrity cases.

Digital warfare has real-world consequences. Allegations of bots and online campaigns underscore how modern PR and law intersect.

The trial is shaping up as a landmark case—not just for Hollywood, but for how we define truth, power, and accountability.

Whether It Ends With Us ends in a court verdict or quiet settlement, the resonance of Lively’s NPR confession will reverberate far beyond legal briefs—changing how celebrity narratives are managed in the modern era.