Lyndsey Fifield thought she was finally telling the full story of her relationship with Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner when she agreed to speak with The New York Times, but she now believes the paper used her trust to protect a rising progressive rather than expose him.
According to Western Journal, the Times framed its piece around allegations that Platner regularly grabbed her by the shoulders sometimes hard enough to leave marks and, on one occasion, yanked her out of a cab by her wrist after an argument when she wanted to stay in the car. Fifield, who dated Platner between 2013 and 2015, recalled that his behavior changed dramatically when he drank, revealing what she described as a darker, more aggressive side that she believed voters had a right to know about.
The Times further reported that during one argument, she recalled, he twisted her arm behind her back, shoved her into a bedroom and held the door closed from the other side so she couldnt get out, telling her to remain there until she was calm. According to the papers account, she left the next morning after falling asleep in the room, an episode that, in her telling, was part of a broader pattern of disturbing conduct rather than an isolated incident.
Fifield also recounted that Platner spoke with apparent enthusiasm about raping anyone who might burglarize his apartment, a comment that deeply unsettled her. She said he would sharpen an ax while watching television and boasted that he had a Nazi SS tattoo on his chest, long before that symbol became a public controversy in his Senate campaign.
Yet when the Times story finally appeared, Fifield said she was stunned by how much of what she had shared was softened, sidelined, or omitted altogether. What initially looked like a damaging expos of a Democratic candidate, she argued, had been carefully edited into something that posed little real threat to Platners political ambitions.
It dawned on me that this really was a set up all along, she posted on X, accusing the reporters of manipulating her trust. 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, she wrote, suggesting the piece functioned more as damage control than accountability.
She said the experience left her feeling doubly betrayed first by Platner and then by the institution that had promised to help expose him. Violating the trust of his victims. Shattering the trust I placed in them with the most vulnerable story of my life, she wrote, describing what she now sees as a profound abuse of journalistic power.
Fifield acknowledged that she had serious reservations about cooperating with the Times, given its well-known ideological leanings. I bucked all advice from my friends (and resisted my conservative bias) and decided to fully trust the Times journalists, she wrote, explaining that she overrode her instincts in the hope that the truth would transcend partisan lines.
Her disillusionment set in as soon as she read the published article and realized how the narrative had been shaped. 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 Grahams by far)? she posted, arguing that the piece seemed designed to scrutinize her rather than the candidate.
She also questioned the Times claim that her allegations could not be corroborated, saying she had provided names of people who could back up her account. 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), she wrote, accusing the paper of cherry-picking details that cast doubt on her credibility.
Where were the screenshots theyd said they would use? Or the mention that Id supported local democrats and that most of my family (and husband) are liberal? she continued, arguing that the editors stripped away context that would have undercut any claim she was acting out of partisan malice. 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, she said.
Fifield said she had been alarmed from the moment she saw Platner launch his Senate bid, particularly because of the Nazi imagery she says he once proudly displayed. She wrote that the day I saw him announce he was running I wanted to make sure people knew he had a Nazi tattoo and I was terrified he would find out it was me. But of course he knew it was me, she posted on X, suggesting that his awareness only heightened her sense of vulnerability.
When Times reporters first approached her, she said, they appealed to her sense of duty and solidarity with other alleged victims. She recalled them telling her, there are other women. Women terrified to tell their stories, too, and you need to band together. WE will help you. We will protect you. Men cant keep getting away with this, language that framed the project as a crusade against abuse rather than a political calculation.
According to Fifield, the reporters even facilitated contact among the women so they would not feel isolated in coming forward. She said they connected me to two of the other victims so we wouldnt feel so alone. I insisted to each of them that I trusted the NYT journalists and that we were doing the right thing despite their (sadly very accurate) sense that something was wrong, a regret-laden admission that underscores how deeply she now questions the motives of the legacy media.
Her account raises broader concerns about a press corps that often claims to believe women when accusations target conservatives, yet appears far more cautious when the allegations threaten a Democrat with national ambitions. For readers already skeptical of establishment outlets, Fifields experience will likely reinforce the perception that institutions such as The New York Times are less interested in equal justice than in protecting their ideological allies, even at the expense of the very victims they profess to champion.
Login