Catch and Kill: The New York Times Had Two Witnesses Prepared to Accuse Graham Platner of Sexual Assault but Didn't Publish Their Stories

So there's the answer: Yes, there were "multiple women" accusing the Nazi of rape, but the New York Times ran a catch-and-kill operation to suppress their stories, while only reporting on less serious charges. (Though still serious enough.)

In newspaper parlance, "catch and kill" is a technique for "getting" a story with the intent to suppress it.

For over a week, Washington, D.C., was abuzz with rumors of a big story coming from the New York Times about Democrat Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner -- himself once a fixture for many young political staffers in the capital while serving as a bartender at the Tune Inn.

Although you likely won't read about it on social media, the Times story mentions serious allegations against Platner: that he physically abused an ex-girlfriend -- including grabbing her shoulders so hard that he left bruises and twisting her arm behind her back, shoving her into a room, and locking her in there overnight. Another ex-girlfriend shared that she cut off contact with Platner after a drunken episode that was apparently too disturbing to retell.

But these allegations are buried under mountains of campaign flack bullshit and then packaged as "intimidating" and "unsettling." Normal people have another phrase for it: domestic abuse.

That characterization is by design.

Let me be clear: the New York Times story was not journalism. It was a a soft catch-and-kill operation. It was a favor to Platner's campaign, a disservice to readers, and an insult to the women who say they were hurt by him.

...

The term 'catch and kill' refers to a shady practice where a public relations firm or consultant works with a friendly news outlet that was pitched or 'stumbled' upon a negative story about a client to effectively 'catch' and then 'kill' the story -- or delay it until it no longer has impact.

...

The Times's supposed vaunted exposé on Platner buries its lede 22-paragraphs in to the piece. By the time readers got to the allegations that should have opened the article, they had already been marched through campaign spin, euphemistic mush, and ex-girlfriend character witness.

In fact, for the first third of the New York Times expose, they focused on women provided to the newspaper by the Platner campaign -- who, of course, sang the degenerate former bartender's praises. And frankly, that is all many readers will come away with, because that is about as far as their attention span lets them get into the narrative. Which is, again, the point.

Prior to publication, I'm told that the Times spoke to two women who had credibly accused Platner of sexual assault. This detail was revealed to Fifield -- likely in an effort to encourage her to divulge more of her story. Those women's allegations never made it into the story. They were effectively 'killed' by the Times's editors and by Platner's attorneys, I'm told.

...

The goal was to create enough doubt and ambiguity regarding Platner's disgusting behavior to let my friend, Lyndsey Fifield, be smeared by Democrat Party operatives like Emma Vigeland and partisan media hacks like Krystal Ball.

And that's exactly what they did.

Lyndsey Fifield writes that the NYT duped and used her to cover up for Maine Kampf:

Lyndsey Fifield @lyndseyfifield

Anyone who has ever extracted themselves from a relationship with a narcissistic abuser knows it isn't clean or easy.

I cringe remembering how many times I tried to play the "cool girl" or fawn in response to what was clearly abusive, coercively controlling behavior by Graham.

I also know how dangerous it is to become the target of a narcissist -- so even long after our relationship ended I continued to be upbeat any time he reached out, though I would also immediately shut down any attempts on his part to initiate flirting or romanticizing of the past.

Yes, 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.

What's ironic is I absolutely never would have shared my story if he hadn't been relentlessly attacking my character behind the scenes for months once the tattoo story came out.

I tried to signal that I wasn't the source and stayed completely silent about him on social media even as most of my friends posted regularly about what a bad person he is.

But then in early April the New York Times came to me. I asked how they got my number. I said I was not interested in sharing my story. They said but wait--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 can't keep getting away with this.

Hours before their first call to me I saw Eric Swalwell's name plate get removed from his office door in Cannon. It felt like fate.

I welcomed the two journalists into my home days later, nervous and overwhelmed. Justin Fairfax had just murdered his wife and himself the previous day and even conservative pundits were conjecturing that "if only those women hadn't accused him of abuse, this never would have happened..."

But I told them my story. I let them take pictures of my diary pages. I sent them screenshots of messages and gave them phone numbers and contacts. It was excruciating. I was surprised by what details I remembered, and as I poured through old messages I was horrified by how much I had forgotten.

I explained very clearly that, like many women abused by their partners, I had not told anyone about his violence at the time--I had covered for and defended it. I accepted his earnest apologies. They said that's fine because the diary entries and my on the record story was enough.

They connected me to two of the other victims so we wouldn't 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.

One of the victims and I realized our relationships with Graham overlapped completely - he had been cheating on both of us the entire time we were together....

Here's the post where she reveals that she provided the names of people who would confirm her account -- but the New York Times lied and claimed there was no one to confirm her account:

Lyndsey Fifield @lyndseyfifield

I bucked all advice from my friends (and resisted my conservative bias) and decided to fully trust the Times journalists.

As they left my home they asked that I not talk to any other outlets and I insisted then and repeatedly over the following weeks that I would keep my word and only share this story with them.

But then the weeks dragged on. They kept coming back to us saying the editors needed more. I needed to go on the record (okay). We need more screenshots (okay). I met every bench mark they set, eager to provide more sources or evidence as needed.

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)?

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).

Where were the screenshots they'd said they would use? Or the mention that I'd supported local democrats and that most of my family (and husband) are liberal?

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.

It dawned on me that this really was a set up all along. 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.

And at the end of my call with them I reluctantly accepted their insistence that this was still a powerful story and that I had done a brave thing. And I thanked them for all the hard work they had put into it.

Still fawning after all these years.

Happy Friday!

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 12:12 PM

| Access Comments