Speculations Surrounding Graham Platner

Washington, D.C., has been buzzing with talk about a New York Times article featuring Graham Platner, the Democratic candidate for Senate from Maine. Platner, who previously worked as a bartender at the Tune Inn, was well-known among the young political staffers in the area.

Interestingly, while this hasn’t made the rounds on social media, the article reportedly includes serious accusations against him. Platner has been accused of physically abusing an ex-girlfriend, with incidents described such as leaving bruises after grabbing her shoulder, twisting her arm, and locking her in a room. Another ex-girlfriend indicated that she cut off contact with him following an incident where she felt too anxious to retaliate due to his drunkenness.

However, these allegations seem to be overshadowed by typical campaign rhetoric and are presented in rather vague terms like “intimidating” and “disturbing.” For many, there’s a more straightforward term for this: domestic violence.

It’s crucial to clarify that the New York Times piece didn’t function as typical journalism. Instead, it appears to align more with a tactic known as a “soft catch-and-kill.” This means the article served to obscure the seriousness of the accusations against Platner as a form of support for his campaign while doing a disservice to his readers and, most importantly, to the women alleging harm.

One of those women happens to be a friend of mine.

Having worked for a long period in political communications before returning to journalism, I understand how these catch-and-kill operations work. More importantly, they can craft a softer version of this strategy when direct attacks aren’t feasible.

The term “catch and kill” generally involves public relations firms collaborating with news outlets to suppress negative stories about their clients. Basically, they capture the story and then bury it so it doesn’t make an impact.

A “soft catch and kill” runs similarly, where articles are published but the negative details are downplayed or buried, allowing the news organization to feel it has fulfilled its duty while sparing its subject from real scrutiny.

The aim of the Times was not to properly present the accusations against Platner. Instead, it seems designed to provide just enough space for some stories while undermining others, likely aiming to protect the Democratic Party.

This intention becomes clearer upon examining the coverage and responses closely.

The extensive piece in the Times relegated the allegations against Platner among a mix of campaign narratives and testimonies from women supplied by his camp, who generally spoke favorably of him. This is largely what many readers will take away since sustaining attention on the more serious accusations is challenging.

Prior to the article’s release, it has been reported that the Times spoke with two women who have accused Platner of sexual assault. These allegations, however, ultimately went unreported, seemingly “killed” by the editors and his legal team.

It was also mentioned that Platner’s camp received a mere two hours to respond, which later expanded to 24 hours upon the New York Times editor’s request. Such a tight timeline raises concerns about ethical practices in journalism.

The strategy appeared aimed at generating sufficient uncertainty regarding Platner’s actions to allow Democratic operatives to attack my friend Lindsay Fifield publicly.

And that’s precisely what unfolded.

In a recent post, a media figure stated that the Times published unverified claims against Platner, describing them as troubling behavior sourced from someone with partisan ties to his opponent. This particular media personality fittingly exemplifies the catch-and-kill approach, whether gently or not.

Another commentator expressed skepticism about whether the article’s major revelation was merely that Platner behaved poorly in some relationships but positively in others.

More telling is how quickly pro-Democratic voices flooded social media discussions surrounding this story, even before its publication. It seems plausible they received advance notice, either from the New York Times, Platner’s team, or both.

This entire situation illustrates clear signs of a soft catch-and-kill method at play within the Times’ coverage of Platner. Having organized both types of operations in my previous role, it’s evident that what we observe here should raise red flags regarding journalistic integrity at the Times.