Over the weekend, The New York Times came out with an overview of its coverage last month of the Graham Platner sexual assault allegations. It was just over one month ago when the outlet delivered its quasi-exposé on three women detailing troubling experiences with the Senate candidate who possesses no discernible resume. The primary focus was on Lyndsey Fifield, and there have been contentious reactions about that report—Fifield included.

Assistant Managing Editor Patrick Healy conducts an interview with a deputy editor at the politics desk, Felice Belman, to go over some of the specifics behind their reporting. The metaphors all seem appropriate here: placing lipstick on a pig, painting over the errors, putting sprinkles on a crap sundae—pick one. What is clear is the attempt to remold their flawed reporting.

Here’s a gift link to my conversation published today with the Platner story editor, @FeliceBelman. https://t.co/EFcktoeIgj— Patrick Healy (@patrickhealynyt) July 11, 2026

Here’s a gift link to my conversation published today with the Platner story editor, @FeliceBelman. https://t.co/EFcktoeIgj

If you are wondering why The Times is now doing this dose of introspection, it is because Fifield has since taken her story—and evidence—to CNN, and the network was able to do what The Times reporters Katie Glueck and Lisa Lerer were incapable of doing, and that is to corroborate Fifield’s details with others. This becomes an even more scalding hit to the paper’s credibility.

I actually understand why Democrat leaders didn't take our stories seriously when the Times reported them in June but are taking them seriously now.It was by design.The line most shared from the piece was the claim that the Times “could not corroborate” my story despite…— Lyndsey Fifield (@lyndseyfifield) July 7, 2026

I actually understand why Democrat leaders didn't take our stories seriously when the Times reported them in June but are taking them seriously now.It was by design.The line most shared from the piece was the claim that the Times “could not corroborate” my story despite…

CNN appears to have done the job of fully working the details and coming up with the specifics that The Times claims were not available. What is at issue here is that Fifield has long said that she supplied The Times with a list of people who could back her story, but for reasons not explained, they failed to even contact a few, all while indicating they were incapable of verifying things........

© Townhall