Flaawsome Talk with Kjersti Flaa - March 03, 2026


They NEVER expected THIS !!


Episode Stats


Length

21 minutes

Words per minute

159.2118

Word count

3,442

Sentence count

160

Harmful content

Misogyny

5

sentences flagged

Toxicity

1

sentences flagged

Hate speech

1

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

As I reported on Friday, Justin Baldoni and the Wayfair Parties are intending to appeal their lawsuit against Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds, her publicist Leslie Sloan, and the New York Times. So how is Blake going to explain the alleged smear campaign that also happened to her co-stars? Were they also bots?

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Toxicity classifications generated with s-nlp/roberta_toxicity_classifier .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
00:00:00.000 So how is Blake going to explain the alleged smear campaign
00:00:04.040 that also happened to her co-stars? Were they also bots?
00:00:12.960 Hi and welcome to Flossom Talk. I'm Tjersti Flohr, journalist, Hollywood truth teller and
00:00:17.440 your voice of reason in a town built on delusion. I hope everyone had a wonderful weekend. If you
00:00:24.360 missed my episode that I published yesterday with Magnus, I will leave a link below. We
00:00:29.600 spoke about Liza Minnelli's new scandalous book that's being released this week. I love when
00:00:35.960 icons come out with these tell-all books and this is no exception. And if you missed the big
00:00:41.840 news before the weekend, I will go through that a little bit more in this episode. As I reported
00:00:47.360 on Friday, Justin Baldoni and the Wayfair parties are intending to appeal their lawsuit against
00:00:53.940 Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds, her publicist Leslie Sloan and the New York Times. This means that
00:01:02.660 this feud is far from over even after Blake Lively's case goes to trial. Also, Ryan Reynolds won an award
00:01:10.580 this weekend on Saturday. It was the Producer's Guilt of America award and he won an award for the movie
00:01:16.740 he produced about John Candy and that he traveled around with for like four months. I've never seen
00:01:23.780 anyone promote a documentary like this, but for some reason he didn't show up at the award show.
00:01:29.620 I wonder why. Maybe he's trying to stay out of the public eye right now, especially after the news broke
00:01:35.700 that Justin Baldoni and the Wayfair parties are planning to appeal. Also, we have to talk about Jim Carrey's face,
00:01:43.220 because the conspiracy theories have been going crazy this weekend. Everyone is shocked by his new
00:01:49.620 appearance when he showed up in Paris to receive an honorary award called the César or the César,
00:01:56.180 or I don't know how you say that in French. But anyways, his face looked very, very different and he also
00:02:01.700 acted very different and there are theories out there now saying that this is a clone. Anyways, talking
00:02:08.100 about viral moments, after I re-watched the video that Megan Thewey from the New York Times made about
00:02:15.780 a year ago that supported the article that they published, We Can Bury Anyone, inside a Hollywood
00:02:22.260 smear machine where they claimed that Blake Lively had been S-aged and that there was a retaliation
00:02:29.460 campaign against her coordinated by Justin Baldoni and his team. Anyways, this made me think,
00:02:36.580 does Blake Lively also believe that there is a smear campaign or there was a smear campaign against
00:02:43.140 her co-stars? How can they explain with these theories that her co-stars experienced just as much
00:02:51.780 backlash as she did when they promoted the movie and still are? Their comment sections blew up as well
00:03:00.900 and people were going after them? Is Blake Lively saying that the smear campaign against them was
00:03:08.100 organic? Because if the ones that were commenting on Blake Lively's social media or planting Reddit
00:03:15.860 posts or TikTok videos or whatever, if all of those were bots, then were all these bots the same bots
00:03:22.900 that were also hired to smear her co-stars because her co-stars are still being smeared. 1.00
00:03:31.460 I was talking about this video with Jenny Slate going on Seth Meyers the other day. She was on his show.
00:03:38.260 She talked about why she doesn't like going to theaters because she gets so turned on if there's a young 1.00
00:03:43.940 hot man on stage and people were reacting to that obviously because she said that she was so bothered and
00:03:50.260 flustered and she thought it was so inappropriate when Justin Baldoni called her pants sexy when they
00:03:55.620 shot It Ends With Us. And now I was looking at that comment section and the comments go on and on and on
00:04:04.580 about how Jenny Slate is a hypocrite and how she supported Blake and a lot of criticism in general. I could 0.94
00:04:11.940 not find one single positive comment on that Seth Meyers video and I find that particularly
00:04:20.180 interesting in regards to this smear campaign because how can Blake Lively explain this backlash on
00:04:28.900 Jenny Slate if it's not organic unless she believes that the Wayfair parties are still spending a ton of
00:04:37.220 money on this alleged smear campaign to smear her and her colleagues. Yeah, I want to know how Blake
00:04:45.940 Lively's attorneys are planning to explain why this happened to everyone that supported Blake and not
00:04:54.180 solely to Blake herself. Also, I was checking out the producer's Instagram, Alex Sachs. I spoke about
00:05:00.260 her a lot of times. She's also one of the people who came out and kind of supported Blake, but then
00:05:05.700 she kind of trashes her in messages as well. But I noticed one thing in particular and that is,
00:05:12.900 of course, she has turned off her comment section as well. But I noticed that when she was promoting 0.77
00:05:18.340 It Ends With Us on her social media, she did not post a picture of Justin Baldoni from the premiere.
00:05:25.620 She posted a photo of all the other people involved, all the actors and Colleen Hoover. So why did she
00:05:32.020 leave out Justin Baldoni unless Blake Lively told her to do that? Or if she did it purposely and it was
00:05:42.500 her idea, then she's helping to plant a seed that there was a friction on this set, which again fuels
00:05:51.780 the public to speculate why Justin Baldoni wasn't there with the rest of the cast. It's interesting to me
00:05:58.900 reading all these claims from Blake and from her supporters saying that this was a coordinated
00:06:05.060 smear campaign. When things like this proves the opposite, it proves that they actually wanted
00:06:11.540 people to speculate why Justin Baldoni wasn't there. And they wanted this narrative to come out
00:06:18.500 that Blake Lively was a victim. By the way, Alex Sachs just finished doing another movie with Jenny Slates,
00:06:25.940 who's also, as I just said, receiving a lot of backlash. It's incredible the snowball effect
00:06:32.740 of these lawsuits that is harming everyone that supported Blake Lively originally. I don't know
00:06:39.380 if they support her anymore. I don't know if she spoke to Jenny Slate after all of this have happened.
00:06:44.340 I don't know if she has any contact with Alex Sachs or Brandon Sklenor or anyone else. Anyways,
00:06:50.980 let's get back to what happened on Friday when the Wayfair parties filed a letter to the judge
00:06:55.620 saying, hey, we are intending to appeal this case. You should not let New York Times off the hook
00:07:03.060 already because they might be dragged into this again after our appeal. And then that's just a
00:07:10.180 waste of resources for the court system. As you know, it's really hard to win a case against a media
00:07:16.740 outlet here in the US. There is something called an anti-slap law. And it's really hard for someone to
00:07:23.940 prove that the media outlet actually knew the truth and they decided to print a lie and they
00:07:31.540 had a malicious intent. So I don't know what's gonna happen here. But the big news here is obviously
00:07:37.220 that they are planning to appeal this case against Blake, against Ryan, against Leslie Sloan and against
00:07:42.260 the New York Times. Meaning that all of these people are gonna have to deal with this legal feud for
00:07:47.540 a lot longer. This whole thing made me look at that video again that Megan Thewey did on behalf of the 0.98
00:07:53.860 New York Times when they released that article. They are mentioning this video several times in this
00:08:01.060 letter to the judge and it made me go back and look at it again. And I was pretty shocked when I heard
00:08:06.660 the words that Megan Thewey used to explain what really happened here. Private text messages and other
00:08:15.540 documents that we've obtained reveal what really happened. A campaign to tarnish lively. The private
00:08:22.980 text messages and documents that we have obtained reveal what really happened. She claimed that they
00:08:31.620 know what really happened without doing any investigation into this. All they had were these
00:08:37.140 text messages that they cherry-picked and you can see from this video as well they highlight little words
00:08:42.660 here and there to make it seem like something horrific was happening behind the scenes. It's so shameful.
00:08:49.780 After she said that we know what really happened she said what that really was which was a campaign
00:08:54.980 to tarnish lively after she alleged Justin and Jamie had engaged in misconduct. She forgot to mention that
00:09:01.620 there is no evidence at this point or there were no evidence that she had seen at that point
00:09:08.500 that proved that that actually had happened. She's putting this in a way that this is what really
00:09:14.580 happened because I am telling you this is what happened. We have decided on the truth without doing
00:09:20.340 any investigation. And then this part which is one of my favorites. They also agreed in writing not to
00:09:26.900 retaliate against her but as the release of the movie approached they hired a crisis PR manager who
00:09:33.860 orchestrated a smear campaign against lively. Yeah she said that they agreed not to retaliate but then
00:09:39.780 they decided to do that as the movie premiere approach. This is their big problem because what
00:09:46.420 is the intent behind this? They're saying that all because Justin and Jamie Heath or the Wayfair parties
00:09:53.220 wanted revenge on Blake for speaking up but there is absolutely no logic behind this. I've said this so
00:10:00.180 many times but I'm going to repeat it again. What is the point? What would be the point for them to
00:10:05.380 wait until this moment when their movie that they put so much money, sweat, tears and blood into and wait
00:10:13.300 until this moment to retaliate against her so that they would risk that they move that their movie would
00:10:20.180 tag? It's so bonkers. She says this as fact that they hired a pre-PR crisis team tag who orchestrated a
00:10:31.060 smear campaign against lively. They are claiming that that is true and they have zero evidence of that.
00:10:39.140 Interestingly enough I remember she went on the New York Times podcast after this a couple of weeks after
00:10:45.140 to defend the reporting to themselves I guess and then she kept using the word allegedly. So she added
00:10:54.260 allegedly to all these things. The smear campaign was then allegedly and then the SH was allegedly but
00:11:00.740 in this video she claims this as fact. And she's also saying here that Baldoni wanted more. Nathan came
00:11:09.140 up with a document spelling out her plans but Baldoni wanted more. A publicist who had already been
00:11:15.700 working with Baldoni wrote to Nathan, he wants to feel like she can be buried. You know we can bury
00:11:21.860 anyone, Nathan wrote, but I can't write that to him. Saying that he wasn't satisfied with whatever they
00:11:29.220 did to bury Blake Lively and he wanted more. Where does that come from? I have never seen any communication
00:11:37.540 pointing to anything that Justin Baldoni wants to harm Blake Lively. There is no such evidence.
00:11:43.700 She reads the text of course we can bury anyone and then she's saying oh we can't show this to him of
00:11:49.780 course. Which means that even if that was a plan then Justin wouldn't approve it because he never
00:11:56.580 wanted to smear Blake. We've seen so many text messages now, we've seen all the evidence Blake has,
00:12:02.660 we've seen all the evidence Justin has, and we have not yet seen any text messages or emails,
00:12:10.500 we've never heard any phone calls where Justin says please plant something negative about Blake.
00:12:16.900 It does not exist. And in Blake's own deposition she could not point to one article that she thought
00:12:24.100 that they had planted or one article that said anything untrue about her. She also says here,
00:12:30.900 which this was really mind-blowing to me as well because she also says here that Melissa Nathan,
00:12:36.660 that there's proof that she got claims against Baldoni removed from articles and she mentions the
00:12:43.140 SH allegations against him from a text that came from Melissa and she's saying that he's so lucky that
00:12:50.020 this didn't come out or whatever. And that might be true, but the thing is what they're alleging is not
00:12:56.980 true. So the fact that she got things removed, if that happened, we don't know that. I haven't seen
00:13:02.100 any evidence of that. If she got things removed from articles that Leslie Sloan obviously planted 0.73
00:13:09.060 to paint Justin in a bad light and to make him look like he SH Blake, then if that happened, so what?
00:13:17.860 Of course he didn't want that out there because it wasn't true. And now that we've seen the text
00:13:22.340 messages from Leslie Sloan to New York Post to Daily Mail to People Magazine to Us Weekly and how she
00:13:30.820 terrorized and manipulated journalists into writing stories that would favor Blake. And we have texts
00:13:39.380 showing that she got quotes and statements from the Wayfair party removed from articles. So everything
00:13:48.340 everything that Megan Thewey is claiming happened to Blake actually happened to Justin. Funny enough,
00:13:55.940 she says that it's impossible to know how much they planted and how much of it was originating
00:14:02.100 organically. Whatever the case, they seized on it and amplified it. She's excusing their reporting
00:14:08.740 here somehow by saying that no matter what, Baldoni's team amplified posts, which is not illegal. If they
00:14:17.060 amplified posts that were positive towards him, that's not the same as smearing Blake. And she says they
00:14:24.740 can't even prove how much was organic here. So how does any of this make sense then? If you can't prove
00:14:31.300 what's organic and what's not. She also claims that some online observers were critical towards Blake and
00:14:38.660 called her promotion of it ends with those tone deaf. Some online observers. It's also interesting here that
00:14:45.300 she mentions that Sony told Blake Lively to do this tone deaf promotion and focus on the positive
00:14:52.580 message of the movie. She forgets to mention that Blake Lively also had a PGA mark for this movie,
00:15:00.820 that she was the producer of the movie, meaning that she had the power also over the marketing. And
00:15:08.260 Ryan Reynolds, her husband, produced a lot of the promotional content for this movie as well.
00:15:16.020 And she forgets to mention these text messages now that we've seen between Sony employees when
00:15:20.660 they're talking about how tone deaf she is and how she's a terrorist and how she should apologize to 1.00
00:15:28.260 victims and to the reporter, which I think maybe it was me. But even Sony told her to do these things and
00:15:35.380 we have seen no evidence so far of Blake Lively not being able to decide what she wants to say
00:15:42.820 in interviews. Even if Sony suggested wear your florals and bring your friends, whatever,
00:15:49.620 Blake Lively didn't have to do that. That's her decision. She was a producer of this movie. As we
00:15:55.780 could read from those letters she sent to PGA, the Producers Guild of America, Blake Lively had control
00:16:03.060 over everything in this movie. Megan also suggests that the backlash that Blake received was very
00:16:09.060 unusual and that's why it was likely manipulated. But she does not mention, obviously, that all her
00:16:16.580 co-stars received the same backlash as Blake. And here comes my favorite part of this video by Megan
00:16:25.780 Stewie. Drum roll. Listen to this. The shift in online sentiment was unusual enough that a digital
00:16:36.020 marketing consultant produced a report that August that concluded that Lively was being subjected to
00:16:42.900 a targeted multi-channel online attack. Yes, the shift in online sentiment was so remarkable that a
00:16:50.580 digital marketing consultant produced a report. What consultant produced this report? What company
00:16:57.780 produced this report? Who told this company to produce this report? Yes, who hired them? On what
00:17:04.980 basis? She's not even mentioning the name of this company who did this report. And this report, of course,
00:17:12.740 concluded that this was a coordinated online attack on Blake Lively. It's so embarrassing,
00:17:19.780 especially now one year later when we know all the facts or a lot more of the facts of this case,
00:17:25.780 to hear New York Times defend their reporting like this. They have no proof of what Blake Lively told
00:17:32.980 them and still they reported all of this as facts. Anyways, enough of that. Let's get into Jim Carrey's
00:17:40.100 new face. I have to say I was also a little bit shocked when I saw the video of him. Not so much about
00:17:45.620 the face because I feel like we're used to people popping up with new faces all the time these days.
00:17:50.900 Maybe more the women than the men in Hollywood. But when I saw his face, I was like, whoo, okay,
00:17:55.700 you did something here. You lifted a little bit here. You put a lot of fillers in there and maybe
00:18:00.340 a little Botox and now your face looks very different. But when I heard the interview with
00:18:05.700 him, I was like, oh, that is really weird. The way he was so humbled and so grateful and
00:18:11.700 it was a completely new tone. And I was like, oh, it reminded me of that video I saw when he was
00:18:17.940 interviewed on the red carpet by E! News and Kat Sadler, I think her name is, and she was asking him
00:18:24.100 what he was doing at Fashion Week and he said this. There's no meaning to any of this. So I wanted to
00:18:30.660 find the most meaningless thing that I could come to and join and here I am.
00:18:37.140 They're celebrating icons inside. Celebrating icons. Boy, that is just the absolute lowest aiming,
00:18:44.340 you know, possibility that we could come up with. It's like icons. What do you, do you believe in
00:18:49.700 icons? I don't believe in personalities. I don't believe that you exist. And then when he received
00:18:54.660 this award in France, he said this. I felt a lot of love and I felt a lot of appreciation that I tried
00:19:02.740 and what I said was true and I really wanted to recognize my family. I wanted to recognize my dad.
00:19:11.940 Yeah. And there are so many conspiracy theories out there saying that this is a clone and this
00:19:17.460 wasn't really him. I don't know what they think happened to the real Jim Carrey and why he would send
00:19:22.820 a clone or like some impersonator to receive this award. There must be some kind of motivation for
00:19:28.740 that but no one talks about that that I've seen so far online. And someone asked him what's your
00:19:34.420 favorite funny face? I was really is this about someone else? My favorite funny face is the one I'm wearing right now.
00:19:42.180 The one I'm wearing right now is quite funny actually because he does look a little bit funny.
00:19:52.420 But anyways, he said in interviews before that all the characters I played includes Jim Carrey himself.
00:20:01.220 That is also a character that he has played and I think that goes for a lot of celebrities or a lot of actors
00:20:07.700 and comedians. They always play a role when they're out in public and then when you meet them privately
00:20:13.780 they might be very different and I think sometimes that can be hard to maneuver for some people because
00:20:18.980 so many people especially when they meet comedians expect you to be funny all the time. I've interviewed
00:20:24.820 so many comedians asking them about this and they're like oh my god everyone's like oh make me laugh
00:20:30.100 what's your funny face? You know and they're like hey I'm just having dinner with my family I don't
00:20:34.580 want to be funny right now. So I totally get it but I think we can conclude that this is Jim Carrey.
00:20:41.300 He just did some bad surgery but it seems like he's in a good place right now and I'm happy for him
00:20:48.020 if he's happy and there was actually an article in Daily Mail today saying that he has come out now
00:20:54.180 and responded to this. It says here the actor has addressed the claims that it wasn't him at the
00:21:00.180 ceremony with his representative emphatically telling the Daily Mail that Jim did attend the show
00:21:05.940 in person. So yes it was Jim Carrey himself if you were wondering. But anyways let me know what
00:21:12.340 you think about all of this and yes that's it for me today you guys. I hope you enjoyed this episode
00:21:17.700 and thank you for subscribing and if you haven't yet please do hit the notification bell so you never
00:21:23.140 miss an episode of Flossom Talk and I'll see you soon. Bye!