When Blake Lively aired explosive claims of sexual harassment and an unsafe work environment from former co-star Justin Baldoni following the disastrous press tour of It Ends with Us in December 2024, Popcorned Planet’s owner Andy Signore got to work.
He pored over her 138-page complaint and Baldoni’s since-dismissed cross-complaint. He made inroads with inside sources and production members, granting them anonymity to share what allegedly occurred on set. And when covering the latest twists and turns, Signore, like any traditional journalist, said he reached out to both sides for comment.
This summer, Popcorned Planet was among the 100 or so content creators and media personalities that Lively’s legal team subpoenaed through social media companies, seeking personal information such as their legal names, addresses, and even bank records. Attorneys for Lively accused Baldoni and his crisis PR firm of launching a hate campaign against the actress, working hand in hand with creators to paint a false and damaging narrative.
Filing his own motion to quash the subpoena in a Florida district court in late July, Signore claimed he only learned he’d been roped into the case when Google Legal Support provided him a copy of what Lively’s team was seeking pertaining to his Popcorned Planet account. Days later, a process server handed Signore a personal subpoena, requesting seven points of discovery related to his coverage of It Ends with Us and its ensuing legal saga.
Although Signore claimed he had reporter’s privilege and should be shielded from such a request, a Florida judge ruled last week that he needed to comply with Lively’s request and hand over communications, reporting material, and even a text chain with a key source. Despite Signore describing himself as a journalist with an audience of nearly 1 million, and speaking directly with inside sources and crew members, Popcorned Planet publishes its reporting on YouTube. In the eyes of the court, Signore may not be entitled to the same privilege as reporters working for legacy media publications.
Editor’s picks
“I’m just flabbergasted,” Signore tells Rolling Stone, stressing he wanted to be respectful of the judge but was frustrated the court seemed to base some of the decision on an “archaic definition” of what qualified as a news organization. “The ramifications of what this could be if I don’t win this appeal means any digital independent [journalist] in Florida will now not be a journalist because [the judge] didn’t understand the Internet.”
Determining who counts as a journalist in the expanding media landscape is uncharted territory, as the line between content creators, independent journalists, and legacy media grows increasingly blurry. Fifty-three percent of people say they get their news from social media, according to a September report from the Pew Research Center. And over the past five years, sites like Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok have seen significant increases in people admitting they regularly use those sites as a primary news source. As content creators carve out a bigger space online and play a larger role in news dissemination, they introduce new legal questions, uneven editorial standards, and unresolved definitions.
For Signore, “the defendant had the duty to establish he was a news organization to qualify for the reporter’s privilege, [and] the court said he didn’t fulfill that duty,” defamation and entertainment attorney Tre Lovell explains to Rolling Stone. In addition, Judge Lindsay S. Griffin ruled in an 18-page order that even if he did, Lively had proved “the material is very relevant to the case [and] can’t get it from any other source, and it’s not going to cause [the] person any prejudice.” (Signore tells Rolling Stone he plans on appealing the decision.)
Related Content
But Griffin’s ruling also indicated that Signore may not qualify as a journalist in the first place. “Popcorned Planet is little more than a YouTube channel,” Griffin ruled in part. “To qualify as a professional journalist … Signore must regularly engage in the collection and publication of news while working as a salaried employee or independent contractor for ‘a newspaper, news journal, news agency, press association, wire service, radio or television station, network, or news magazine.’”
Griffin added that “nothing submitted by Popcorned Planet suggests that its show practices the editorial standards normally associated with a professional news organization,” and ruled that since Signore is self-employed, “Florida [c]ourts have historically held that the journalist privilege applies to journalists employed or hired by traditional media outlets.”
It’s a seemingly outdated standard, especially given the rise of alternative publishing platforms such as Substack and Patreon, where several traditional media journalists have flocked to start their own lucrative imprints specializing in niche beat reporting. The suggestion raises a broader concern: would reporters who earn their stripes at institutions like the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Atlantic, and others be stripped of their ability to protect their work product and guarantee a source’s protection, all because they struck out on their own?
“I do think the language will adapt to that,” Lovell says. “There are more independent contractors, more independent journalists who are doing legitimate news gathering, legitimate reporting. I was surprised to read that in the order.”
Determining who counts as a journalist or not played a significant role in rapper Megan Thee Stallion’s defamation case against Milagro Cooper, who goes by Milagro Gramz on social media. Cooper had regularly covered the criminal trial of rapper Tory Lanez, who was eventually convicted of gun charges related to shooting Megan Thee Stallion in the foot. As part of her coverage, Cooper read court filings and relayed information from her sources. She also inserted clearly biased commentary, calling Megan Thee Stallion a “professional victim” and a liar, as well as claiming she was mentally unstable. And part of the reason Megan Thee Stallion dragged Cooper into court was because Cooper had encouraged her audience to seek out a deepfake sexually explicit video of the musician, wondering if the footage was authentic.
Megan Thee Stallion’s team was adamant that Cooper did not qualify as a journalist. Cooper pushed back, contending that she was part of an emerging demographic she described as “new media.” “I do much more than just writing articles, but at the same time, the legwork that official journalists do, I have done it time and time again,” Cooper told the court.
The case didn’t necessarily hinge on whether or not Cooper could be considered media — if she was deemed media she’d be able to skirt some of the more hefty damages of the defamation charge because Megan Thee Stallion didn’t send her a prior warning and opportunity to retract the statement — but it did provide an illuminating litmus test on whether everyday citizens saw a distinction between what Cooper posted and those of legacy news sites.
Before being sent back to the deliberation room, a judge instructed the jury that “to qualify as a ‘media defendant’ under Florida law, a party must be engaged in the dissemination of news and information to the public in order to initiate the uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate on public issues … the fact that a defendant is not affiliated with a traditional newspaper or broadcast station does not automatically disqualify them from being a media defendant.”
When the jury emerged after two days of deliberation, they found Cooper liable on all three counts: defamation, infliction of emotional distress, and promotion of an altered sexual depiction. But Cooper left the courthouse on a high. The jury believed she counted as a media defendant, which she viewed as a win. “When all this shit started, I created a campaign geared towards saving NEW MEDIA,” Cooper declared on X, formerly Twitter, a day after the verdict was reached. “It was so important to me that WE were recognized,” adding that “this journey wasn’t in vain. WE have been legitimized and we will be respected.”
“The irony is, in the Blake Lively case, it almost seems like [Popcorned Planet] would qualify for the journalists’ reporter’s privilege, whereas in the [Meg Thee] Stallion case, not qualified as a media defendant, yet they both have flipped on their heads,” Lovell says.
While courts may be able to parse out who is a “journalist” or a member of the “media,” a growing number of the general public doesn’t seem to see a difference, explains Michael Spikes, a lecturer and program director at Northwestern’s Medill School of Journalism. “What we’re finding is that the line between the mainstream, or the more institutional outlets of information,” he says. “I wouldn’t even call it blurry, just gone.”
Spikes says audiences are gravitating towards content creators over mainstream outlets because of the “continual drumbeat of mainstream outlets being thought of as biased or not trustworthy” compared to these new independent voices, who people tend to see as “more authentic because they don’t follow the same techniques” as news outlets.
But creators still seem to want the distinction of being viewed as a “journalist,” even if they aren’t necessarily following the same set of standards. “I think there’s still a patina that’s put on the idea of media that I think content creators are still striving for,” Spikes says. “They still want to be called that. They don’t want to just be called content creators.”
During the criminal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs in New York City over the summer, content creators and new media competed with traditional news outlets, including the New York Times, CNN, TMZ, and Complex, for the coveted 21 seats reserved for press. Some had true-crime YouTube channels with more than 1 million subscribers; others were newcomers with minuscule audiences, hoping their trial coverage would give their followings a boost. Many were able to secure city-credentialed press passes by demonstrating they were covering the trial in the same way newsroom-affiliated reporters secured their badges.
These independent journalists, pop-culture commentators, and creators who live-stream proceedings and analyze court documents have become fixtures in public discourse, with many providing valuable context and highlighting overlooked details. However, some can offer sensationalized commentary, commit serious factual blunders, or blur reporting with personal opinion, making it harder for audiences to distinguish between journalism and entertainment.
Trending Stories
For now, the consequences of that ambiguity vary wildly depending on the courtroom. Signore may be denied reporter’s privilege, in part, because a judge suggested his platform didn’t resemble traditional media. In another, a jury extended the legal protections reserved for media defendants to Cooper, whose work included both reporting and openly partisan commentary.
Both outcomes reflect the same unresolved question: who gets to be recognized as a journalist in an age when journalism may no longer be tethered to legacy institutions?
