How "Journalism" Betrayed A Source

A breakdown of the story behind the storm

A day ago, The New York Times came out with an article that, on the surface, seemed like a damaging & potentially campaign ending scandal that would ruin any & all political aspirations for Graham Platner, the Democrat candidate for the United States Senate from Maine.

What it actually is, in my opinion, is a betrayal of trust given to one of the sources in order to downplay Platner's guilt & create a whole new narrative that the Democratic party has quickly picked up on & ran to the main stream media with an absolute fervor, in an all out smear campaign of one of their sources, Lyndsey Fifield.

I've read her accounting of the process that the Times used in order to get the story & the journalistic integrity is questionable - once I detail Lyndsey's side, as the New York Times should have, but absolutely failed in doing, you'll understand why I bring up integrity, or the lack thereof.

According to Lyndsey on her X account, the Times approached her in early April & she even asked how they obtained her phone number. She even told them “I was not interested in sharing my story”. The next few details are what's got me questioning their journalistic integrity : Lyndsey stated, “They said but wait - there are more women…. WE will help you. We will protect you. Men can't keep getting away with this”. There's the hook along with the line.

There's more. Lyndsey went on to detail how she told her story : “I let them take pictures of my diary pages. I sent them screenshots of messages…” She was later “connected… to two of the other victims so we wouldn't feel so alone.” There's even more line, which I believe was used to manipulate Lyndsey in order to milk as much information as possible from her.

Lyndsey's accounting continues to state that when the Times left her house, they asked her for her exclusivity & told her not to speak with other outlets. She agreed.

BUT

“….the weeks dragged on…”

The reporters kept milking her for more. They asked Lyndsey to give more on the record information, they asked for more screenshots & she kept agreeing to help.

Then, the article was finally published. Something wasn't quite right & Lyndsey knew it right away. “After the story went up began to ask them….where are the stories from the other women? Where are the allegations of sexual assault? Why am i the focus?” She went on to question them further - “ Why does it say ‘nobody could corroborate’ when I offered them sources that COULD corroborate? Where were the screenshots they'd said they would use? Or the mention that I'd supported local democrats & that most of my family (and my husband), are liberal?” Lyndsey then went on to say that The New York Times failed to include in the story that she did confide that Graham had been abusive over the years “long before he was running for office” & that “those friends confirm they told the Times so.”

The explanation that was given to Lyndsey Fifield, is absolutely what they intended to be the sinker : “The editors said it was too much.”

I'll take this time to inform you, the readers, that the New York Times article in question was written by Katie Glueck & Lisa Lerer, who claimed that they spoke with more than 2 dozen people in order to gather their information regarding their article. They even had four other people that assisted as reporting & research contributors. I'll also inform you, the readers, that Katie Glueck is a New York Times national political reporter (so there should be some sort of trust & credibility factors there, right?) & that Lisa Lerer is also a New York Times national political reporter, who has “covered American politics nearly two decades”. (Again, there should be some sort of trust & credibility factors there, right?) I'm also going to inform you, the readers, that the Democrats need only 4 seats in order to flip the Senate back to their majority.

With all of the previously mentioned information I've just provided to the readers, I'm sure that you've been seeing on social media, or even hearing on your news outlets the way that Lyndsey's been characterized as “a Republican operative”. That narrative is, in my opinion, not only a blatant lie, but an attempt to both damage Lyndsey's reputation & credibility, as well as minimize the behavior of Graham Platner all in one fell swoop. That's why I'm describing the integrity of the reporters as questionable, if not flat out unethical.

I'd like to know, given the extensive backgrounds of both Katie Glueck & Lisa Lerer, just how much of their journalistic reports over the course of their careers is actually fair & balanced. It's my hope, that after you've read this article in totality, that you're asking that very same question.