URGENT: Did The New York Times whitewash allegations of sexual misconduct against hero-of-the-left Maine senatorial candidate Graham Platner?

Sure looks that way.

(Back to healthcare soon, but this is too critical and timely to miss.)

—

Graham Platner’s campaign to become Maine’s next senator is imploding as allegations of sexual misconduct and assault pile up against him.

Planter’s campaign is on life support and may not last the day. The biggest loser, besides Platner himself, will likely be The New York Times — which again has shown it has one reporting standard for Democrats, another for Republicans.

This morning, Lindsay Fifield, who told the Times this spring how Platner had intimidated her and once held her in a bathroom against her will, wrote on X about how the Times dismissed the evidence she provided to support her story. Meanwhile, another woman came forward yesterday to allege Platner sexually assaulted her in 2021. She says she did so partly because of how the Times treated Fifield.

The combination is devastating for Platner — and the Times. Even more than its whitewash of Joe Biden’s cognitive decline, the Platner fiasco makes the Times look like a wholly owned wing of the Democratic National Committee.

—

(I was going to paywall this piece, but I decided it’s so important everyone should have a chance to read it. I can do that because many of you step up to support my work voluntarily. Please join the team!)

Or, if you aren’t ready to subscribe full-time, consider a one-time donation!

—

Platner is the Marine veteran who became a sensation on the left thanks to his story as a faux working-class oysterman (he sells much of his crop to his mother’s restaurant). He easily won Maine’s Democratic Senate primary despite questions about his drinking, potential infidelities, and a Nazi-themed tattoo.

But last month, Platner faced even more serious allegations. Former girlfriends said he had physically intimidated and abused them in an article in the Times.

I use the term “article,” not “investigation,” intentionally.

For the Times went out of its way to downplay the allegations. The piece’s second paragraph referred to Platner’s “messy personal life.” (Boys will be boys!) The fourth, before describing any of the allegations, explained that:

In interviews with The New York Times on Wednesday, several women did just that, describing Mr. Platner as a fun and caring partner, and saying they felt safe with him. Some remain friends with him to this day, years after their relationships ended.

Fun and caring, sure.

—

(Put your shirt back on, please. Please?)

—

The Times went on to describe Fifield, the woman who had made the most serious allegations against Platner, as “a Virginia conservative who has worked for right-leaning groups and Republican campaigns.”

It briefly described her allegations, including that Platner had shoved her into a room and refused to let her leave for hours. Then it wrote twice it couldn’t “corroborate” her account.

Not surprisingly, Platner and his supporters shrugged off the allegations, and he cruised to victory in the senatorial primary a few days later.

But yesterday, a Maine woman named Jenny Racicot told CNN and Politico that Platner had sexually assaulted her. In 2021, a drunk Platner entered her apartment and had sex with her even after she begged him to stop, Racicot said.

As a Times columnist who had previously lauded Platner wrote, Racicot’s story “is completely believable and completely devastating.”

—

What makes this turn of events equally devastating for the Times is that it also interviewed Racicot for last month’s story. She hadn’t publicly mentioned the rape allegations, in part because she supported Platner’s political views.

But after Racicot saw the way the Times dismissed Fifield, she decided she had to come forward — and not to the Times, she told Politico:

SOURCE

—

Following Racicot’s allegations, Fifield published her own description of how the Times had treated her on X Tuesday morning:

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…

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

—

(Help me corroborate the truth! For pennies a day!)

Or step up for independent journalism with a five-dollar donation (more if you like, I won’t argue!)

—

To say the least, this is a terrible look for the Times. The paper’s reporters failed to do the work necessary to find out Fifield’s allegations were credible — and then smeared her in print. You can judge for yourself if they would have done the same if Fyfield was a Democrat and Platner a Republican.

In the paleolithic days when I was a reporter for the paper, this level of journalistic malfeasance would have led, at a minimum, to a serious internal investigation, with the findings publicly released.

Let’s hope the same standards hold now.

I’m not optimistic.

NOTE/CORRECTION: This piece originally spelled “Fifield” as “Fyfield” throughout. I regret the (inexplicable) error.