Tipsheet

The NYT Tried to Do Damage Control Over Their Whitewashed Graham Platner Story, But It's a Trainwreck

Matt Vespa
Matt Vespa  |  July 13, 2026 6:50 AM

The New York Times is facing criticism for misreporting the Graham Platner story. They shifted their focus from the now-defeated Maine Democratic Senate candidate, who dropped out last week, to Lyndsey Fifield, moving away from the more serious allegations that Politico finally published on July 6, which ended Platner’s campaign. Jenny Racicot claimed that Platner raped her in 2021. Isn’t that the hook? Well, let’s get to what they said here. Felice Belman, deputy politics editor for the NYT, was interviewed about the process by Patrick Healey, assistant managing editor for standards and trust (via NYT):

So, we surfaced credible, well-sourced allegations about Mr. Platner’s treatment of women, and reported and published as many on-the-record details as we could confirm at the time. But some people criticized the story or wanted it written differently. Many Republicans wanted it to be tougher on Mr. Platner. Some progressives wanted it to discount one of the accusers because she is a conservative. Some critics thought we downplayed his treatment of the three women. How do you see all this reaction?

FELICE: Yes, we have been accused of publishing damaging information about Mr. Platner with the purpose of hurting his campaign. And we have been accused of withholding information with the purpose of helping him. Neither is true. Our job is not to take sides but to fairly report the facts.

[…]

This week, one of the women in our story, Jenny Racicot, was quoted by Politico and CNN saying that Mr. Platner forced her to have sex with him in 2021. That allegation was not in our article. She told Politico that she had told The Times more details of that night off the record. We don’t talk publicly about information we get off the record. But can you talk about our approach to handling off-the-record information?

FELICE: Especially with allegations of sexual violence, people sometimes feel comfortable speaking to reporters off the record initially and then considering what they are willing to put on the record and make public. Their thinking on this often evolves over time.

As Jenny Racicot has said elsewhere, we published what she was willing to tell us on the record about that incident. Anything she told us off the record was not included in our story, and we did not share any off-the-record information with the Platner campaign.

[…]

The story described the political leanings of the three women. Ms. Fifield is a conservative who has worked for right-leaning groups and Republican campaigns; the other two are Democrats. Why get into their politics?

FELICE: We wanted to be forthright with readers about the political views of people making accusations against a political candidate. For instance, we noted that Ms. Racicot agreed with many of Mr. Platner’s policies. We included Ms. Fifield’s background in conservative politics, including whom she had worked for and when, and that she wasn’t connected to the campaign of Mr. Platner’s opponent, Senator Susan Collins.

Our reporting showed that their accusations were serious and credible, which is why we ran the article.

Okay, but this house of cards comes tumbling down quickly. First, Fifield has posted at length on Twitter about how she was treated through this process, namely, why she was the focus. Second, Racicot is mentioned in the Times’ piece, but she added that she felt her side was glossed over. Third, Fifield gave the New York Times plenty of contacts to corroborate other acts of alleged abuse by Platner, including sexual assault. Nothing. Politico ran with Racicot’s story, and CNN corroborated everything Fifield told the NYT, who had told her they were unable to do so. 

Once again, the NYT whitewashed their article to shield a Nazi, and the way Fifield was treated was so terrible that it led Racicot, who backed Platner’s agenda, to come forward. 

Either the NYT is stupid, incompetent, or both. All the work was done for you guys; you just had to dial the numbers and review the information provided. Why didn’t you do that? 

We all know the answer, you fake news clowns. 

Fifield has said her piece multiple times, but here's a refresher:

I bucked all advice from my friends (and resisted my conservative bias) and decided to fully trust the Times journalists.

As they left my home they asked that I not talk to any other outlets and I insisted then and repeatedly over the following weeks that I would keep my word and only share this story with them.

But then the weeks dragged on. They kept coming back to us saying the editors needed more. I needed to go on the record (okay). We need more screenshots (okay). I met every bench mark they set, eager to provide more sources or evidence as needed.

After the story went up I began to ask them … wait, where are the stories from the other women? Where are their accusations of sexual assault? Why am I the focus? Why are there 11 paragraphs dedicated to detailing my work history (more than has been published about Graham’s by far)? 

Why does it say “nobody could corroborate” when I offered them sources that COULD corroborate?

Why did they include an out of context quote from a friend joking “do not call Graham” after I called off my wedding? (Because she knew I would never).

Where were the screenshots they’d said they would use? Or the mention that I’d supported local democrats and that most of my family (and husband) are liberal?

The editors said it was too much, they explained.

The Times also failed to include any mention that I DID confide in multiple friends through the years that Graham had been abusive — long before he was running for office. Those friends confirm they told the Times so.

It dawned on me that this really was a set up all along. The journalists I trusted who convinced me to share a story I never wanted to tell methodically delayed and twisted this into a gift to the Platner campaign. Violating the trust of his victims. Shattering the trust I placed in them with the most vulnerable story of my life.

And at the end of my call with them I reluctantly accepted their insistence that this was still a powerful story and that I had done a brave thing. And I thanked them for all the hard work they had put into it.

Still fawning after all these years.

Second part:

I actually understand why Democrat leaders didn't take our stories seriously when the Times reported them in June but are taking them seriously now.

It was by design.

The line most shared from the piece was the claim that the Times “could not corroborate” my story despite talking to two of my friends.

I gave them the contact information for five friends.

They called the two who I clarified would not know about the abuse but would be able to affirm our relationship timeline, events, etc.

They simply did not call the other three.

I also gave them the names of all my former roommates who remembered him stalking our row house (which was about 5 houses down from his) and waiting for me to return. I gave them screenshots of messages between these roommates and I discussing it.

I gave them the names of other men I dated who might have remembered him following us around the hill and showing up on my stoop after we walked home from dates to confront us. I gave them emails to my landlord urgently ending my lease and moving to an apartment across town and diary entries talking about it - all time marked.

I told them that during pre-marital counseling I had spoken to my ex-fiance about the abuse because I had to explain to him why I reacted with such terror any time he lost his temper. They said oh NO we don't need to bother HIM (or my priest). Besides, I had written about it in my diary in detail, they reassured. 

As the weeks dragged on I stopped trying to give them evidence because the amount I had already given them seemed to overwhelm them and I thought it meant they clearly had more than enough to verify my every claim.

My friends might not have known the details of the abuse, but they affirmed that yes, I had told them that he was abusive—long before he ran for Senate.

Besides, they assured, my part in their reporting would be small. I thought my details would only serve to affirm Jenny and the other anonymous woman.

Jenny and I - having never met or spoken - both shared with these reporters terrifyingly similar details of intimate partner violence, coercive control, and cycles of abuse/love bombing. The third unnamed woman in the story did as well.

But tell me again how they “could not corroborate.”