Accuser Fifield called early New York Times report ‘a gift to the Platner campaign’
The New York Times published a story in early June detailing Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner’s treatment of women he had dated, but the article’s main source came away frustrated with its tone and framing. Lyndsey Fifield, who spoke candidly to Times reporters about her experiences with the Maine combat veteran, charged that the piece was “a gift to the Platner campaign,” according to Sullivan’s account.
The Times headline characterized Platner’s behavior as “unsettling” — a word Fifield considered mild given what she had described to reporters. The story’s structure, Sullivan noted, included a long lead-in from the perspective of the Platner campaign before reaching the more serious allegations deeper in the piece.
What Fifield described to the Times
Fifield’s account, as reported in the Times, included allegations that Platner grabbed her by the shoulders hard enough to leave marks, yanked her out of a cab against her will, and during one argument “twisted her arm behind her back, shoved her into a bedroom and held the door closed from the other side so she couldn’t get out.” She also told reporters that Platner would refer to women using the crude term “hatchet wounds.”
Platner vehemently denied any violence. The Times stated that its reporters “could not independently corroborate Ms. Fifield’s account of the altercations.” Fifield, Sullivan wrote, complained that the reporters “didn’t try hard enough.”
Political background shaped the reception
The story’s impact was complicated by its description of Fifield as “a Virginia conservative who has worked for right-leaning groups and Republican campaigns.” Some supporters used that framing to dismiss the allegations as a politically motivated smear campaign.
With continued support from progressive elected officials including Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna, Platner won the Democratic primary convincingly. He appeared ready to challenge longtime Republican Sen. Susan Collins in the general election.
Allegations escalated in July
The situation shifted dramatically in early July when Politico published a story in which Jenny Racicot, another woman Platner had dated, alleged that he came to her home drunk and forced her to have sex against her will.
“I remember him grabbing my pelvis and being really forceful of me,” Racicot told reporters. “I remember the specific moment where I thought to myself, like, ‘This is no longer my choice.’”
Politico stopped short of using the term rape, Sullivan wrote, “but people understand that forced sex is rape, after all, and that’s how the story has been widely received.”
CNN’s Jake Tapper subsequently interviewed Racicot on air. The story’s impact was far greater than the initial Times report, in which Racicot had been a named source but said considerably less.
Supporters who had been able to look past the earlier controversies — including a Nazi-like tattoo, sexting with multiple women shortly after his marriage, and Fifield’s allegations of rough treatment — found the sexual assault accusations to be, as Sullivan wrote, “a bridge too far.”
Condom removal allegations and Platner’s exit
Even as supporters were pulling back, the Washington Post published a report detailing Fifield’s charges that Platner had repeatedly and without her consent removed condoms during sex. Platner denied this as well.
Platner effectively ended his Senate campaign within days, and a Democratic scramble to replace him as the nominee began.
Assessing the media’s performance
Sullivan’s assessment was that “reporters succeeded in ferreting out the truth, though not with flawless timing or execution.” She posed a series of “what if” questions — what if the Times story had been more definitive, what if the Politico and Post reporting had come a couple of weeks earlier — while acknowledging that “this kind of reporting doesn’t happen on a convenient timeline.”
“Often, one story leads to another, perhaps in a different news outlet,” Sullivan wrote. “For various reasons, as the days tick on, sources may decide to say more or put more information on the record. New sources may emerge after the initial reporting.”
Betsy Morais, the editor of Columbia Journalism Review, described the episode as “profoundly troubling, wish-we-knew-it-sooner stuff, and a reminder of the patient work that MeToo reporting requires.” Morais added: “Reporting on sexual violence is an extraordinarily difficult, sensitive task, and there are often serious questions of timing and approach.”
Times representatives told Sullivan that the newspaper “conscientiously published what they were able to verify and in as timely a manner as possible.”
Sullivan characterized journalism as the “first rough draft of history” and wrote that in the case of the Maine Senate race, “the ink is still wet, and the history is still being written.”