Actor Justin Baldoni faces a $250 million libel lawsuit, and the New York Times responds.

The New York Times claims that the central story in actor Justin Baldoni's $250 million lawsuit against the paper was "thoroughly and conscientiously reported" as heated rhetoric intensifies.

Blake Lively previously sued her "It Ends with Us" co-star, Mark Baldoni, for sexual harassment, retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and more. Lively also alleges that Baldoni engaged in a "social manipulation" campaign to harm her career and reputation.

The Hollywood smear machine is revealed in a Times story from December 21, titled "‘We Can Bury Anyone’: Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine," which exposes private emails and text messages detailing a plan for a largely undetectable smear campaign against actress Blake Lively, who is married to "Deadpool" star Ryan Reynolds.

The Times article was accused of deliberately omitting information that contradicted Lively's version of events by Baldoni and other subjects, who claim the Times defamed them in the process. They filed an 87-page lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court, stating that critical context from communications that dispute many of Lively's claims was left out.

The New York Times will "vigorously defend" itself, stated Danielle Rhoades Ha, the paper's spokeswoman.

An independent news organization's duty is to follow the facts wherever they lead. Our story was carefully and ethically reported. It was based on a thorough examination of numerous original documents, including the text messages and emails we accurately and extensively quoted in the article. Those texts and emails were also the central point of a discrimination lawsuit filed in California by Blake Lively against Justin Baldoni and his associates, as Rhoades Ha told Planet Chronicle Digital.

"In order to rectify some inaccuracies in the lawsuit, The Times contacted Mr. Baldoni and other individuals who would be mentioned in the article, sharing the information that they planned to publish, including specific references to text messages and documents. They were asked to identify any inaccuracies, provide additional context, and speak with their team. However, Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios, and the other subjects declined to engage in any conversations with The Times or address the specific text messages or documents, instead submitting a joint response that was published in its entirety."

The Times executive stated that the joint response was sent to the Times before the complaint was made.

"Rhoades Ha stated that they sent their response to The Times at 11:16 p.m. ET Dec 20, not at 2:16 am E.T. Dec 21 as the complaint claims. They plan to vigorously defend against the lawsuit."

An insider from The Times disclosed other mistakes in the lawsuit, such as incorrectly calculating the report's word count, and stated that all text messages utilized for the article were obtained through discovery.

The Times insider is also perplexed by the lawsuit's emphasis on the report's publication timing, as the complaint alleges that reporters violated an "implied-in-fact contract" when they offered Baldoni and others until noon the next day to respond to allegations but published the story at 10:11 a.m. ET, since the paper had already received a response.

Freedman, Baldoni's high-powered attorney, has accused the Times of being biased towards Hollywood elites.

According to Freedman, the New York Times was pressured by Blake Lively and her team to participate in a smear campaign, which involved manipulating and fabricating information to fit their narrative. Despite their reputation for ethical journalism, the Times caved to the demands of two powerful Hollywood elites and disregarded journalistic practices.

"By predetermining the outcome of their story and aiding their own devastating PR smear campaign, they revitalized Lively's self-induced floundering public image and countered the organic groundswell of criticism among the online public, ironically."

Freedman blasted the Times, accusing the paper of deceiving the public.

Freedman stated, "Although our side acknowledges only part of the truth, we uphold the whole truth and have evidence to support it. The public will ultimately decide based on their own judgment, as they did when this started."

This report was contributed to by Lauryn Overhultz and Christina Dugan Ramirez of Planet Chronicle Digital.