Over the weekend, The New York Times came out with an overview of its coverage last month of the Graham Platner sexual assault allegations. It was just over one month ago when the outlet delivered its quasi-exposé on three women detailing troubling experiences with the Senate candidate who possesses no discernible resume. The primary focus was on Lyndsey Fifield, and there have been contentious reactions about that report—Fifield included.
Assistant Managing Editor Patrick Healy conducts an interview with a deputy editor at the politics desk, Felice Belman, to go over some of the specifics behind their reporting. The metaphors all seem appropriate here: placing lipstick on a pig, painting over the errors, putting sprinkles on a crap sundae—pick one. What is clear is the attempt to remold their flawed reporting.
Here’s a gift link to my conversation published today with the Platner story editor, @FeliceBelman. https://t.co/EFcktoeIgj
— Patrick Healy (@patrickhealynyt) July 11, 2026
If you are wondering why The Times is now doing this dose of introspection, it is because Fifield has since taken her story—and evidence—to CNN, and the network was able to do what The Times reporters Katie Glueck and Lisa Lerer were incapable of doing, and that is to corroborate Fifield’s details with others. This becomes an even more scalding hit to the paper’s credibility.
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.
— Lyndsey Fifield (@lyndseyfifield) July 7, 2026
It was by design.
The line most shared from the piece was the claim that the Times “could not corroborate” my story despite…
CNN appears to have done the job of fully working the details and coming up with the specifics that The Times claims were not available. What is at issue here is that Fifield has long said that she supplied The Times with a list of people who could back her story, but for reasons not explained, they failed to even contact a few, all while indicating they were incapable of verifying things with the supplied names.
Recommended
I gave CNN the very same messages, diaries, and sources I gave the New York Times.
— Lyndsey Fifield (@lyndseyfifield) July 12, 2026
NYT reported that my sources “couldn't corroborate” my claims.
Thankfully, CNN *actually called them* and verified that yes, they corroborated everything. pic.twitter.com/JeR6FBIRK5
Now it might be a fair argument to make that CNN was motivated to go forward, now that Platner’s campaign has been deep-sixed, and it is safe to act appropriately. But that is speculation, admittedly. So now we have The Times attempting to run cover, and it is a case of the denial being far too loud and too late.
The Times did speak to Jenny Racicot, the woman whose story of Platner forcibly assaulting her became the spine-cracker for the dromedary, but the explanation given is that her talk with them on those particular details had been off the record, and thus unusable. As a result, Fifield became the spotlighted figure.
What the June report in The Times managed was to steer the focus away from Platner, while at the same time giving his campaign, and the rest of the media, plausible deniability. Some described it as a catch-and-kill effort, to downplay the impact. Fifield became the primary focus, and the paper—by highlighting her career as a conservative figure—gave all the room for the narrative to become Platner possibly being the victim of a conservative hit job. It was a disgraceful effort.
This was where the two editors strove to justify making Fifield out to be something more than a victim of Platner’s aggressions.
HEALY: 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?
BELMAN: 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.
This approach gave the Platner campaign—and a compliant press industry that was both lobbying on his behalf and on the hook for backing the problematic political hopeful for 10 months—something to latch on to. The Times, after all, had been the outlet to platform the man in the days before he was in the campaign.
When you run thousands of words on a man with a vacant political resume, over a sitting governor with name recognition and years of experience, it tends to indicate working in tandem with the party to establish their preferred choice for the office. It stands to reason, then, that your paper might have a vested interest in shielding the guy you helped become a national brand.
We also saw the objectivity hesitancy of The Times in the form of Jodi Kantor, as she sat with Kasie Hunt and tried vainly to explain how the Fifield accusations were not measuring up, in her professional opinion.
"The accusations against Graham Platner are not classic MeToo accusations. They’re not about a boss and a young female employee being subjected to sexual advances. They were mostly made in the context of consensual relationships. The way my colleagues reported them were not like classic abuse allegations. They were mostly like being his boyfriend gave me a view into him and I did not like what I saw. His character was scary. He had this Nazi tattoo. Et cetera.”
WATCH: New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor – who wrote many of the #MeToo stories – DEFENDS Graham Platner and DISMISSES the allegations against him by @LyndseyFifield and other ex-girlfriends because they were not “abuse” and women saying they just “did not like what” they saw… pic.twitter.com/qMSSXa3XNU
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) June 10, 2026
That kind of logic is so twisted that most people would be putting salt and mustard on it. But it stands as another way how this newspaper was not reporting straightforwardly, but instead looking for any way to mold its reporting to fit a prescribed result.
What is amusing is that The Times seemed to operate as if its practice of pulling punches and working to reframe the storyline to serve a purpose would not end up being exposed. Lyndsey Fifield called out the paper the day of its publication, and she had acolytes coming forward to say they had both never been contacted and were willing to give their version of things.
So CNN picking up that fumble has led to this attempt at recasting their actions. It just stands as yet another case of the press becoming hung up on their fealty to this guy who was shown to be little more than a rapey Nazi with anger issues. And we all know why they so ardently wanted this Senate seat to flip.
A month ago I drew up a lengthy list of outlets who fawned over Der Oysterfuhrer, recognizing this meltdown was sure to play out.
— Brad Slager: CNN+ Lifetime Subscriber (@MartiniShark) July 7, 2026
I will enjoy reminding them of the way they backed Platner anytime they hurl their empty “Nazi” accusations going forward.https://t.co/eAus6M7Dgd
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Townhall's conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member