Lyndsey Fifield, who came forward with allegations against Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner, has expressed profound feelings of “betrayal” and “gaslighting” following her interactions with The New York Times. She contends that the newspaper “tainted” her account by misrepresenting its focus and her role in a story published last month.
The controversy intensified following a separate report by Politico on Monday, which detailed accusations of sexual assault against Platner by Jenny Racicot, a former partner. Racicot alleged that in 2021, Platner entered her home uninvited while intoxicated and engaged in sexual activity despite her repeated objections, an act she described as rape. Platner has vehemently denied these claims. The allegations prompted calls for Platner to withdraw from the Maine Senate race, and he officially did so on Wednesday night.
Both Racicot and Fifield had been interviewed by The New York Times for a story published in May concerning Platner’s alleged “unsettling” behavior with women. However, Fifield asserts that the Times’ report disproportionately emphasized her conservative political background, overshadowing the core allegations.
“The New York Times piece… people are looking back at that with absolute horror and just saying like, ‘Holy crap, this is like terrible. This is truly gruesome what you’ve done to these women,’” Fifield stated in an interview. She recounted that Times reporter Katie Glueck initially contacted her in April, indicating the paper was investigating “some really serious things” reported by other women regarding Platner.
Fifield, who dated Platner between 2013 and 2015, felt pressured by the Times reporters, including Lisa Lerer who co-authored the story. “They said… very insistently, ‘Wait, wait, there are other women who are very afraid to come forward. They do not want to tell their stories because of how vulnerable they are, and you can help them, and we can protect you,’” Fifield recalled. She felt guilty, believing that if she didn’t go on record, Racicot and another unnamed woman might not have their stories heard.
During the reporting process, the Times reporters connected Fifield with Racicot, a move Fifield found unusual. She was told Racicot was “totally isolated” and needed support, a narrative Fifield later questioned. “They said she really needs a friend, and you will understand her… and they were right about that. We have become friends,” Fifield noted.
Fifield had initially shared an allegation with the Times off the record: that Platner had repeatedly removed his condom during sex without her knowledge or consent, a practice known as stealthing. She hesitated to go public due to the sensitive nature of the act and her current life as a wife and mother. However, inspired by Racicot’s decision to speak publicly with Politico, Fifield chose to go on the record with her stealthing claim to The Washington Post on Tuesday.
Fifield expressed dismay at the Times’ published report, which she felt spotlighted her excessively. “I’m out here on my own, I’m the only one photographed, and there’s 11 paragraphs of my work history. Like, what is this?” she reacted, questioning the editorial choices.
While Racicot’s assault allegation was mentioned deep within the Times’ article, Fifield felt her own account was marginalized and her political identity amplified. The Times’ story described Fifield as a “Virginia conservative who has worked for right-leaning groups and Republican campaigns” and highlighted her ties to a conservative women’s group. Her own allegations of physical abuse, including an incident where Platner allegedly “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,” were placed much later in the report.
Fifield directed her frustration towards the Times’ editors. “I want to blame the editors at The New York Times,” she stated, adding, “I almost don’t want to blame these journalists because they became like friends, I felt like we had a friendly relationship — and maybe that’s me being really naïve. I don’t know, it doesn’t make any sense.”
She also found the reporters’ subsequent advice to avoid public reaction to the story perplexing. “They were like, ‘Oh, Lyndsey, just stay off social media. Don’t listen to people who are being critical of you… Put your phone away. Go to the lake… Go on vacation, enjoy your babies… You did a brave thing. This was so huge. You’re so brave for doing this and we really appreciate it. We’re here if you need anything.’ And it was just, like, gaslighting,” Fifield recounted.
Fifield believes the timing of the Times’ report, which came out shortly before the primary election, was strategic. “They were like slow walking it to the week of the primary. They contacted us on April 15. There was no reason in hell that they shouldn’t have been able to get that story out that week,” she said. “It makes me sick to realize that that’s what they were doing now.”
The Times’ article included a disclaimer stating it “could not independently corroborate Ms. Fifield’s account of the altercations.” Fifield disputes this, asserting that the Times reporters were aware of her corroborating sources but chose not to contact them. She mentioned confiding in a friend about the abuse, but this friend was never interviewed by the newspaper. “They only called the sources that didn’t know anything about the abuse,” Fifield claimed.
She recalled a conversation where the inclusion of the “could not corroborate” line caused her significant panic. “I was like, ‘Wait a minute, what do you mean? I thought that you called.’” When the Times attempted to downplay the disclaimer, telling her “it’s fine. You know, women don’t often come forward, so it’s actually normal for women not to tell anyone,” Fifield felt “horrified.”
Emily Zanotti, a friend of Fifield’s who was willing to speak with the Times to corroborate the mistreatment she witnessed, stated on X that she was never contacted by the newspaper. Conservative critics have suggested the Times employed “catch and kill” tactics to suppress allegations against Platner, a notion Fifield echoed, stating, “They tainted our story.”
A spokesperson for The New York Times defended the publication’s reporting, calling it “a powerful and original piece of journalism that presented deeply personal accounts and many new facts for the first time.” The spokesperson added, “The story carefully reported what we could confirm at the time, was factually accurate and fair, and it alerted the public to important new information about a candidate for the Senate.” The statement also pushed back against what it termed “false allegations and criticism about The Times’s journalism process” from “partisan commentators and politically-aligned media.”
