"Gross Hit Piece": Internal Revolt At NYT Over Shoddy Platner Story

The New York Times article on Graham Platner, titled 'Several women who dated Graham Platner recall unsettling behavior,' failed to independently corroborate the most serious allegations. The primary accuser, Lindsay Fifield, a Republican operative, claimed physical intimidation, but the Times noted it 'could not independently corroborate Ms. Fifield's account of the altercations.' Out of six women quoted, only one used the word 'unsettling,' and three had positive things to say about Platner.

The hosts quote the NYT article directly: 'The Times could not independently corroborate Ms. Fifield's account of the altercations.' They also detail the breakdown of women's statements: 'Really, I think only one of the six women they quoted use unsettling. Three women had some negative things to say, but also some positive things to say. The other three women had all basically positive things to say.'

Lindsay Fifield, the main source for the serious allegations against Platner, is a long-time Republican operative. She co-founded 'Ladies for Kavanaugh' in 2018 and is currently a fellow at the Independent Women's Forum. This forum notably bragged about scripting Senator Susan Collins's speech justifying her support for Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation, indicating a direct link to Collins, Platner's political opponent.

The hosts cite a New York Post article featuring Fifield as a co-founder of 'Ladies for Kavanaugh' (00:05:38). They then play a clip of the Independent Women's Forum chair bragging about scripting Susan Collins's Kavanaugh speech, noting Fifield is a current fellow there (00:07:15).

A long-time New York Times reporter allegedly informed the hosts that many within the Times, including the reporter themselves, considered the Platner story a 'gross hit piece' that fell 'beneath their reporting standards.' This suggests significant internal disagreement and concern over the article's journalistic integrity.

The host states, 'I heard I've been told from a long-time New York Times reporter yesterday who gave me permission to share this that many others at the Times, including this person who I spoke with, have said that this and they know internally that this is a gross hit piece and beneath their reporting standards.'

Graham Platner directly denied the physical allegations made by Fifield and the claim that he knowingly had a Nazi-related tattoo. He stated these were 'statements of someone who's politically motivated.' He did, however, take responsibility for struggling with alcohol and having a 'dark period' after combat service, which he has openly discussed during his campaign.

A clip of Chris Hayes interviewing Platner is played, where Platner states, 'No, it did not. There are some allegations in this piece that I just want to be kind of unequivocal about are simply not true. Um, anything alleging physicality, anything alleging that I knew what my tattoo was, these are the statements of someone who's politically motivated.' (00:18:31).

The hosts argue that the NYT story is part of a broader, bipartisan effort by centrist establishment figures, including those connected to Neera Tanden and pro-Israel groups, to prevent Platner from winning the Maine primary. This alliance allegedly seeks to replace him with a more establishment-friendly candidate like Janet Mills, who is not actively campaigning.

The hosts note the 'vague posting' came from 'quite right-wing people' and 'centrist liberals who all seem to be connected with Neera Tanden in some way. And Israel, don't forget a lot of them are Zionists' (00:00:56). They also discuss the Democratic establishment's 'plan B' candidate, Janet Mills, who is 'not even willing at this date to campaign' (00:23:13).