New York Times Journalists Protect Rapists Now
None Of The News is Fit To Print
Just when you think the mainstream media can’t go any lower, they surprise us yet again and try to use their power to cover for a rapist because he is a Democrat with a chance of winning a Senate seat from a Republican.
The mainstream media have been covering for Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner for months. He is a foul-mouthed, unhinged man who has an actual Nazi tattoo. Yet they protected him anyway.
Then we learned that the New York Times used their journalistic power to try and “Catch and Kill” a story about him assaulting and abusing at least two women. Their reporters befriended Lyndsey Fifield, a conservative activist, convinced her to trust them with the most painful details of being abused by him, extracted extensive evidence from her, and then used that cooperation to suppress and minimize the story rather than expose the full truth.
They also smeared her as a conservative activist trying to bring down a Democrat. Fifield has now laid out exactly what she gave the Times — and precisely what they ignored or dismissed in what she calls a deliberate “capture and kill” effort to protect Platner.
She provided the contact information for five friends. The reporters only called the two she had specifically flagged as people who could confirm relationship timelines and events — but who did not know the details of the abuse. They simply did not call the other three.She gave them the names of all her former roommates who remembered Platner stalking their row house (just five houses down from his) and waiting for her to return. She provided screenshots of messages between those roommates and herself discussing it. She gave them the names of other men she dated who might remember Platner following them around Capitol Hill and showing up on her stoop after dates to confront them.
She handed over emails she sent to her landlord about urgently ending her lease and moving to an apartment across town because of the situation — along with time-marked diary entries detailing the abuse.During pre-marital counseling, she had spoken to her ex-fiancé about the abuse because she had to explain why she reacted with terror whenever he lost his temper. She had also spoken to her priest.
The Times journalists told her, “Oh no, we don’t need to bother him (or my priest).” They reassured her that her detailed diary entries were more than enough. As the weeks dragged on, Fifield says she stopped offering additional evidence because the amount she had already given seemed to overwhelm the reporters. She assumed they clearly had more than enough to verify every claim.
Her friends may not have known every detail of the abuse at the time, but they confirmed to the Times that yes — she had told them Platner was abusive long before he ran for Senate. Fifield thought her role in the story would be small. She believed her details would simply affirm the accounts of Jenny and the other anonymous woman. Jenny and Fifield — who had never met or spoken — described terrifyingly similar patterns of intimate partner violence, coercive control, and cycles of abuse and love-bombing. The third unnamed woman in the story shared the same.“But tell me again how they ‘could not corroborate,’” Fifield wrote.
The Times article published on June 4, 2026, led with the line that the newspaper “could not corroborate” key parts of her story. That line became one of the most shared parts of the piece. Democrat leaders and commentators treated the allegations as unproven or overblown.
Fifield now says she understands why. “It was by design,” she stated. The newspaper’s decision to befriend her, take her evidence, ignore most of the corroborating witnesses and documents she provided, dismiss conversations she had with her ex-fiancé and priest, and then claim the story could not be verified had exactly the effect she now believes was intended: it protected Platner at a critical moment in his campaign. That protection did not last. Another woman has now come forward with a direct allegation of rape. The emergence of that more serious claim — combined with Fifield’s detailed public accounting of everything the Times ignored — has forced Democrat leaders to take the allegations seriously in a way they did not in June.
Fifield is speaking out now because she sees the pattern clearly. The New York Times did not want the full story of sexual abuse and intimate partner violence against a Democrat they hoped could win a Senate seat. They wanted just enough of her story to appear balanced, while ensuring it remained easy to dismiss.
By design, they limited the damage in June. By design, they made it harder for other victims to be believed at the time. Now that another woman has alleged rape and Fifield has shown exactly what evidence was set aside, the truth is harder to contain.
Platner has denied all allegations of physical or sexual violence. His campaign has called the claims exaggerated and politically motivated.Fifield’s message is simple and direct: she gave them everything. They chose what to use — and what to ignore — to shield a Democrat. Another woman is now alleging rape. And Fifield is no longer staying quiet about how it happened.
The mainstream media — you don’t hate them enough.