Graham Platner's ex-girlfriend torches New York Times over 'twisting' bombshell 'abuse' exposé 59%

By Jon Michael Raasch0%

6/5/2026, 3:45:30 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Biased Writer Voice, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 36.8% saturation with 200 hits. Analysis detected 1,221 faulty-reasoning hits from 544 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 55.7% and a BS Rank of 59% (8,511 of 20,517 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 58.50% of the article peer group.

An ex-girlfriend of Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner has bashed the New York Times for downplaying her 'abuse' in a new exposé. 
Lyndsey Fifield spoke with the Times for an article detailing his behavior towards women on Thursday. 
The bombshell report raises serious questions about Platner's treatment of women while he is already under fire over a sexting scandal. 
Platner, the married Maine Democrat, left a trail of bad impressions with women he dated from both Washington, D.C., and his home state of Maine. 
He admitted to sexting multiple women after he was married to Amy Gertner in 2023. 
Platner is running in the contentious Maine Senate race, hoping to oust incumbent Senator Susan Collins, a Republican. 
The string of scandals has brought new scrutiny from both sides of the aisle to the candidate's campaign. 
Platner and Collins are currently neck and neck in the polls, each receiving 46 percent among likely voters, according to a new survey from Republican firm Fabrizo, Lee & Associates. 
Fifield said that Platner would become aggressive, particularly when drinking. 
Though she said he 'never hit me,' she claimed he would regularly grab her by the shoulders, leaving marks, and once pulled her from a taxi by her wrist during an argument. 
Fifield, a conservative operative, also recalled an incident in which he twisted her arm behind her back, pushed her into a bedroom, and held the door shut, telling her to stay there until she was 'calm.' 
But now Fifield is accusing the Times of not telling the full story, claiming they 'methodically delayed and twisted' her story into a story she likened to 'a gift to the Platner campaign.' 
She further accused the outlet of violating the trust of his victims and 'shattering the trust I placed in them with the most vulnerable story of my life.' 
The ex-girlfriend penned several social media posts on Friday, claiming that she was told by the NYT reporters that the story would feature other women who claimed Platner sexually assaulted them. 
But the exposé was void of any such claims. 
'After the story went up I began to ask them  wait, where are the stories from the other women? 
Where are their accusations of sexual assault?' 
Fifield wrote. 
The story did include remarks from two of Platner's other ex-girlfriends, but they stopped short of any sexual assault accusations. 
Jenny Racicot, another of the Maine Democrat's former lovers, said without elaborating that Platner 'does not respect women.' 
Platner's campaign told the Daily Mail in a statement, 'Let's be very clear: This is a lifelong GOP operative who's dedicated her career to electing Republicans.' 
Racicot also described Platner's behavior to the Times as 'reckless' and 'unsettling.' 
'When I saw the old comments that he made online,' she said, 'I recognized a version of him that I had experiences with.' 
The third unnamed woman, a Maine Democrat, described the candidate as charismatic at times but also prone to heavy bouts of drinking. 
The Daily Mail has contacted the New York Times for comment. 
Sign up HERE to our DC Insider newsletter - your guide to what's rocking Washington, rattling the White House and setting tongues wagging on the Hill 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.9%Jon Michael Raasch: 4.5%Daily Mail: 2.7%Confirmation Bias11.9%This article: 5.5%Jon Michael Raasch: 1.5%Daily Mail: 0.7%Anchoring Bias5.5%This article: 14.5%Jon Michael Raasch: 5.5%Daily Mail: 2.8%Availability Heuristic14.5%This article: 7.9%Jon Michael Raasch: 1.1%Daily Mail: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic7.9%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 10.6%Daily Mail: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 23.3%Jon Michael Raasch: 20.1%Daily Mail: 6.9%Framing Effect23.3%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 1.4%Daily Mail: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 4.4%Daily Mail: 2.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 1.2%Daily Mail: 1.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 23.9%Jon Michael Raasch: 14.3%Daily Mail: 10.9%Negativity Bias23.9%This article: 4.8%Jon Michael Raasch: 3.7%Daily Mail: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias4.8%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 2.0%Daily Mail: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 4.2%Jon Michael Raasch: 1.3%Daily Mail: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias4.2%This article: 6.6%Jon Michael Raasch: 2.8%Daily Mail: 1.0%In-Group Bias6.6%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 1.0%Daily Mail: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Jon Michael Raasch: 1.6%Daily Mail: 5.0%Halo Effect7.4%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 0.6%Daily Mail: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.3%Jon Michael Raasch: 2.5%Daily Mail: 1.7%Recency Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 0.3%Daily Mail: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Jon Michael Raasch: 3.1%Daily Mail: 1.7%Ad Hominem4.8%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 4.1%Daily Mail: 3.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 3.4%Daily Mail: 0.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 3.2%Daily Mail: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.9%Jon Michael Raasch: 10.2%Daily Mail: 3.9%Hasty Generalization12.9%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 2.5%Daily Mail: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 0.5%Daily Mail: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.6%Jon Michael Raasch: 11.0%Daily Mail: 6.5%Appeal to Emotion11.6%This article: 6.1%Jon Michael Raasch: 1.2%Daily Mail: 0.5%Begging the Question6.1%This article: 3.9%Jon Michael Raasch: 7.2%Daily Mail: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.9%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 0.5%Daily Mail: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.7%Jon Michael Raasch: 1.0%Daily Mail: 0.4%Burden of Proof5.7%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 36.8%Jon Michael Raasch: 8.0%Daily Mail: 3.1%Anecdotal36.8%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 5.1%Daily Mail: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 0.5%Daily Mail: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.6%Jon Michael Raasch: 7.5%Daily Mail: 3.3%Unattributed Quote6.6%This article: 2.2%Jon Michael Raasch: 3.2%Daily Mail: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection2.2%This article: 15.8%Jon Michael Raasch: 7.9%Daily Mail: 8.9%Biased Writer Voice15.8%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 0.0%Daily Mail: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 1.5%Daily Mail: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Michael Raasch: 1.0%Daily Mail: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Jon Michael Raasch: 1.8%Daily Mail: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.8%

544 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers50%attributed speech272writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageLyndsey Fifield • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageLyndsey Fifield • 10 words • 0.0% coverageLyndsey Fifield • 32 words • 0.0% coverageLyndsey Fifield • 36 words • 100.0% coverageLyndsey Fifield • 33 words • 0.0% coverageLyndsey Fifield • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageLyndsey Fifield • 20 words • 0.0% coverageLyndsey Fifield • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageJenny Racicot • 18 words • 0.0% coveragePlatner's campaign • 26 words • 0.0% coverageJenny Racicot • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJenny Racicot • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageDaily Mail • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jenny Racicot

77%flagged-word coverage
53 attributed words19% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Biased Writer Voice-31.6 ptsWriter: 31.6%Jenny Racicot: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -9.6 ptsWriter: 9.6%Jenny Racicot: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.4 ptsWriter: 4.4%Jenny Racicot: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.