NYT Deliberately Withheld the Most Explosive Graham Platner Allegations From Its Own Storyhttps://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2026/06/05/nyt-withheld-the-most-serious-graham-platner-allegations-from-its-own-story-n4953619When the New York Times spoke with Lyndsey Fifield about her experiences with Graham Platner, the paper made promises. Representatives of the paper said they would protect her, that men couldn't keep getting away with it. They collected her diary pages, her screenshots, her contacts, and walked away with everything she had. Then they published their story.
The story they published was damning, but, according to Fifield, they omitted the most serious allegation.
Fifield had every reason to stay quiet. She described her current life as genuinely good, raising two young daughters in a safe neighborhood, working from home, active in her church, and surrounded by close friends and family. She knew exactly what violent leftist activists would do with her name once it was out there.
...
So she let two New York Times journalists into her home and handed over everything. Diary pages. Screenshots. Phone numbers. Contacts.
...
"I bucked all advice from my friends (and resisted my conservative bias) and decided to fully trust the Times journalists," Fifield said. She declined to speak to any other outlets and kept her promise through weeks of delays.
But then the story ran, and it was nothing like what she expected.
“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)?” she asked.
That’s right: The New York Times spiked accusations of sexual assault from the other women (who were Democrats) in their article, instead focusing on her and highlighting her work as a Republican operative.
"Why does it say 'nobody could corroborate' when I offered them sources that COULD corroborate?" she continued. Those friends confirmed to the Times that Fifield had told them about Platner's abuse years before he ever announced a run for office. The Times left that out, too.
She drew the only conclusion that fit. .... "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."
The NYT withheld some of the more serious accusations, falsely called Fifield's accusations uncorroborated, and made her name public for any "vengeance"-inclined Dems/Progs.
As Instapundit Glenn Reynolds frequently posts, no matter how much you detest the MSM, you do not detest them enough.
