JONATHAN TURLEY: Journalists’ #MeToo Criticisms Target Democrats, Yet Avoid Platner’s Allegations
JONATHAN TURLEY – When it comes to the #MeToo movement, some journalists focus their ire on politicians rather than the allegations themselves. This dynamic has become evident in recent discussions surrounding Maine’s senatorial race, where New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor has defended the support of Graham Platner by Democratic voters. While multiple women have accused Platner of misconduct, Kantor argues that these cases do not align with the traditional narratives often associated with #MeToo. Her reasoning, presented on CNN, suggests that the accusations against Platner are not the same as the classic examples of sexual harassment and abuse that have defined the movement.
The Case for Platner: A Shift in #MeToo Allegations
Kantor, known for her Pulitzer Prize-winning coverage of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual abuse, has positioned herself as a mediator in the debate over Platner’s candidacy. During the interview, she emphasized that the allegations against him are not the typical workplace abuses that have dominated public discourse. “These are not classic #MeToo accusations,” she stated. “They’re not about a boss and a young female employee being subjected to sexual advances. They were mostly made in the context of consensual relationships.” This distinction, she argued, allows supporters of Platner to reconcile their political goals with the movement’s principles.
“They were mostly made in the context of consensual relationships. There are these, like, very sensational texts about sex. There are allegations from former girlfriends that are not — the way my colleagues reported them were not like classic abuse allegations,” Kantor explained.
Kantor’s argument hinges on the idea that the sexual misconduct claims against Platner are less severe than those against Weinstein or other high-profile figures. She cited a prior girlfriend’s accusation of physical abuse, including being locked in a room overnight, and his alleged sexting with women. However, she framed these incidents as personal rather than systemic, suggesting they lack the broader political implications of classic #MeToo cases. “There was one allegation of crossing a line physically, but I think that means these are pretty different accusations than, say, the ones that President Trump faced,” she noted.
Politicizing #MeToo: A New Narrative
Despite her efforts to contextualize Platner’s case, Kantor’s defense has sparked debate. Critics argue that her approach risks diluting the movement’s core message by allowing exceptions for politicians who align with Democratic values. The #MeToo movement has long been a tool for holding powerful figures accountable, but Kantor’s stance appears to prioritize political strategy over the severity of the alleged offenses. Her statement, which would have drawn fierce backlash if applied to Brett Kavanaugh’s Senate confirmation, highlights the tension between accountability and party loyalty.
Kantor’s rationale for Platner’s support includes a focus on his character traits, such as the Nazi tattoo he allegedly displayed. She described the tattoo as a symbol of his personality, rather than a direct indicator of his behavior. This emphasis on visual symbolism, however, has been met with skepticism, as it downplays other controversies involving Platner, such as his mockery of a wounded veteran and his dismissive attitude toward rape victims. These incidents, though not part of the classic workplace abuse framework, still raise questions about his treatment of women.
The Weight of Evidence: Lyndsey Fifield’s Claims
Lyndsey Fifield, one of Platner’s ex-girlfriends, has provided a more detailed account of his alleged misconduct. She described being physically restrained by Platner, with one incident involving him twisting her arm behind her back and pushing her into a bedroom. “He shoved her into a bedroom and held the door closed from the other side so she couldn’t get out, telling her to remain there until she was ‘calm,’” Fifield alleged. These claims contrast with Kantor’s portrayal of the incidents as consensual or less serious, suggesting a disconnect between the journalist’s framing and the lived experiences of the accusers.
Kantor, while acknowledging the physical aspect of the allegations, seems to minimize their significance. “There was one allegation of crossing a line physically, but I think that means these are pretty different accusations than, say, the ones that President Trump faced,” she said. This comparison, however, has drawn criticism from those who argue that even a single act of physical coercion can be a significant violation of trust. The movement’s strength lies in its ability to hold individuals accountable for a range of behaviors, from verbal harassment to physical abuse, yet Kantor’s defense suggests a willingness to accept a narrower definition of misconduct.
From Weinstein to Platner: A Broader Perspective
Kantor’s approach to Platner’s case reflects a broader trend in how #MeToo allegations are interpreted in political contexts. In a previous analysis, she grouped a variety of controversies — from Al Franken’s sexual misconduct to Brett Kavanaugh’s accusations and Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes — under a common banner. “It felt like there was this period where discussion of #MeToo was actually pretty bipartisan,” she noted. “Democrats like Al Franken were accused, but so were Republicans, like Roy Moore.” This framing positioned #MeToo as a universal issue, transcending party lines and focusing on the corporate and political arenas.
Yet, Kantor’s current defense of Platner suggests a shift in how these allegations are being used. She argues that the Kavanaugh hearings marked a return to older patterns of political weaponization, where accusations became a battleground for ideological battles. “Those are scenarios in which the allegations take on all of the heat and the poison of American political life,” she said. “In those stories, it almost feels like it’s not even about the women anymore.” This sentiment implies that #MeToo has become a tool for partisan conflict rather than a movement focused on gender equality.
Kantor’s evolving stance has raised questions about the consistency of her arguments. Initially, she viewed #MeToo as a bipartisan force, but now she seems to prioritize political considerations over the severity of the allegations. Her defense of Platner has been described as a “rationalization,” allowing Democrats to maintain their support for the candidate while keeping the #MeToo narrative intact. This duality has sparked a debate over whether the movement is being used to justify the actions of politicians or to hold them accountable.
Reflecting on the #MeToo Movement’s Role in Politics
As the #MeToo movement continues to shape public discourse, its role in political debates remains contentious. While Kantor’s defense of Platner highlights the complexity of applying the movement’s principles to all cases, it also underscores the challenges of maintaining its integrity in the face of political pressures. The movement’s strength lies in its adaptability, yet its politicization risks alienating those who seek to hold power accountable.
Platner’s candidacy has become a focal point for this debate. On one hand, his supporters argue that his personal relationships with women are not enough to discredit his political platform. On the other hand, critics contend that dismissing these allegations as less severe undermines the movement’s impact. As the campaign progresses, the balance between accountability and political strategy will likely remain a key point of contention. In the end, the question of whether Platner’s actions align with the #MeToo ethos will depend on how the movement is interpreted and applied in the public sphere.
