I am finding the coverage of this story an interesting example of the open bias and deliberate slanting of the story depending on who or which side is covering it.  The same reports are covered with drasticly different tones, phrasing and include or exclude details depending on which group the reporter is either trying to promote or degrade.   For example on This Week Martha Raddatz reported the story in the darkest most impassioned way to present Platner as an out of control phycotic abuser of women and repeatedly elaborated on his sexting of women while dating and slightly after he was married to his wife as a great moral failing making him not worth or qualified to serve in Congress.  Yet she never faulted Ken Paxton or tRump the same way.  During her report on this story she talked up Janet Mills praising her repeatedly while mentioning that she was the needed alternative to Platner.  Her report made it sound like the entire state of Maine and all the Democrats did not want Platner but the majority of people she interviewed were supporting him.   In the reporting of this by The Majority Report they take a different tact in the reporting on Platner.   They report the facts in a less sensational manner and put everything in context to modern society.  Below is just a clip of the transcript of the show.  For those not wanting to watch this I recommend at least reading the transcript.  There might be details, facts, or context not reported elsewhere.   Sam askes where are the other accusers and their stories.  Hugs

Um, and I’m also fascinated by the way this story has developed, like who is doing this? Uh, because the the timing of this stuff is strange.  Um, and suggests that it’s not just a question of Republicans because Mhm.  If the Republicans had this stuff, they would drop it uh you know in October.  But why or or it could be about Republicans taking a different tact here and saying we need to get him out of the race as opposed to try and beat him because we may not be be able to beat him. The best thing is for us to get him out of the race. Yeah.  And now is the most opportune time to do that. But uh regardless. So let’s put up this tweet from Lindsay Fitfield. She is the only person to suggest uh any type of physicality uh and again uh she wouldn’t have called it like abuse but any type of physicality from Platner and she also suggests that he knew uh what his tattoo

And the reason why she does that is because she wants the Times to carry the story as opposed to another outlet. And she is strategizing.  The Times is are going to hit the audience. I want them to hit. If you wanted this on the uh, you know, on the right, you wouldn’t go to the Times.  That’s what comms professionals do. We have this story. Where are we going to go? And she went to the Times and made a deal with them. You’ll get an exclusive when you write this.  

Uh 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? Why am I the focus? Why are there 11 paragraphs uh dedicated to detailing my work history?” Which is that hilarious because it was such a footnote in the story. It obscures the true nature of her collaboration with Republican operatives and her work in Republican politics. And she’s asking, “Where are their accusations of sexual assault?”  Yeah, they probably just wanted to embarrass themselves by leaving those out like as if they actually existed.

Yeah. because in that instance it the whole thing sounds like a total hit job uh by these reports. Remember they’ve been working on this story for months according to her, right? I mean the dragged on and um and that’s just when they had her stuff.  Keep put u why does uh it say nobody corroborate could corroborate when I offered them sources that could corroborate. They obviously went to these sources and those sources could not corroborate.