Last month, The New York Times published a report detailing serious allegations against Graham Platner, who was then a prominent Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in Maine. Three women who had previously dated Mr. Platner described a pattern of demeaning and troubling behavior, including at least one instance of physical intimidation.
Following the publication, the Times has received numerous inquiries regarding its editorial process. Specifically, readers have asked how the paper corroborates allegations, how it manages off-the-record information, and what specific thresholds must be met before such stories are published. Additionally, questions have arisen regarding the paper’s knowledge of a rape allegation—which Mr. Platner denies—that coincided with his decision to withdraw from the Senate race this week.
To address these questions, we spoke with Felice Belman, a deputy editor on the Politics desk who oversaw the coverage of Mr. Platner.
What prompted the Politics team to investigate Mr. Platner’s personal conduct?
FELICE BELMAN: The Maine Senate race is of critical importance to both parties’ efforts to control the chamber. Because Mr. Platner entered the race as a relatively unknown figure, we wanted to provide readers with a comprehensive profile. While reporting on a separate story in Maine this spring, reporters Katie Glueck and Lisa Lerer encountered concerning accounts regarding his relationships with women.
What steps did the reporters take to verify these claims?
FELICE: Katie and Lisa sought out a wide array of individuals who had been in Mr. Platner’s professional and personal circles to determine the validity of the tips. They eventually identified three former partners who described their relationships as toxic and volatile. After weeks of investigation, the reporters focused on corroborating these accounts through documentation and third-party interviews to ensure the facts were verifiable for our readers.
How was that corroboration handled?
FELICE: Our reporters looked for contemporaneous evidence, such as diaries, emails, or text messages, and asked if the women had disclosed these experiences to friends, family, or therapists at the time. We interviewed individuals who could confirm specific details of the on-the-record allegations. Furthermore, we ensured the women fully understood how their testimonies would be presented before the story went live.
The reporting drew criticism from both sides of the political spectrum. Republicans suggested the story was intended to damage his campaign, while some progressives felt we should have discounted a conservative accuser. How do you respond to these critiques?
FELICE: Our objective is not to assist or hinder any political campaign, but to report the facts fairly and accurately. We do not take sides; our priority is factual integrity.
Reporting on sensitive personal behavior requires a high level of care. Could you explain the process of preparing sources for this type of story?
FELICE: These stories generally require extensive reporting because they ask individuals to publicly share some of the most painful moments of their lives. It takes time to build trust and ensure subjects are comfortable with the process.
In this instance, our journalists met with the women in person in Maine and suburban Virginia, conducting hours of interviews over several weeks. We maintained strict boundaries between information provided on the record—which we were permitted to publish—and information provided off the record, which we kept confidential.
How did you determine that these allegations met the threshold for publication?
FELICE: The on-the-record accounts described a pattern of menacing behavior, including one instance of physical intimidation. The ability to confirm and corroborate these details was essential to meeting our publication standards.
We included Mr. Platner’s denial of the physical intimidation claims in the article. Given his standing as a leading candidate in a high-stakes race, we believed this information was of significant public interest, particularly for the voters of Maine.
Recently, Jenny Racicot told Politico and CNN that Mr. Platner forced her to have sex with him in 2021. This was not in our report, and she noted that she had shared these details with The Times off the record. How does the paper handle such sensitive, off-the-record information?
FELICE: In cases of sexual violence, it is common for survivors to speak off the record initially and only decide later what they are comfortable making public. Their perspective often evolves over time.
As Ms. Racicot indicated, we published only what she was willing to put on the record at the time. Any confidential information was excluded from the story and was never shared with the Platner campaign.
Some critics argue the story should have signaled the rape allegation. Do you believe there was a missed opportunity there?
FELICE: Our editorial team debated how to best represent Ms. Racicot’s experiences, but the deciding factor was our commitment to honor the confidentiality agreement. The final text reflected exactly what she was willing to share on the record:
Ms. Racicot also said that in 2021 he arrived at her house drunk, after she had asked him not to come over. She declined to elaborate, but said she cut off contact soon after that episode and found his behavior “reckless” and “unsettling.”
That paragraph accurately captured the extent of her on-the-record testimony.
How do you balance the desire to report a newsworthy event with a source’s wish to remain off the record?
FELICE: We recognize that speaking off the record is often a first step. Reporters listen to the accounts and gently encourage sources to consider what they might be comfortable putting on the record, a negotiation that often happens over several conversations.
Unlike political figures, most private citizens are unfamiliar with these terms. Our reporters clearly explain that only on-the-record statements will be published. We are scrupulous about this, and the story underwent rigorous review by senior editors before publication.
What determined the level of detail provided for each woman’s account?
FELICE: Of the individuals interviewed, three described troubling interactions. Lyndsey Fifield’s account was presented in the most detail because she provided the most comprehensive on-the-record testimony. The other two accounts provided necessary context to the pattern of behavior.
Why include the political affiliations of the accusers?
FELICE: Transparency is key. We wanted readers to know the political leanings of those making accusations against a candidate. For example, we noted Ms. Racicot’s agreement with many of Mr. Platner’s policies and Ms. Fifield’s history with conservative groups and Republican campaigns, while clarifying that she had no connection to Senator Susan Collins’ campaign.
Ultimately, our reporting demonstrated that these accusations were serious and credible, which justified the publication of the article.
