Jen Psaki claimed the press was “enraged” over Graham Platner, but critics argue the media ignored glaring warning signs while Democrats rushed to defend him.
The press and TV pundits are scrambling to paint themselves as surprised by Graham Platner, but that spin doesn’t pass a basic smell test. For months, his social media history, troubling comments, and a Nazi-style tattoo were visible to anyone willing to look. Yet prominent outlets and personalities treated the whole episode like a scandal they only just discovered.
Molly Jong-Fast mocked the situation with a quip, and that line stuck: “We did Nazi that coming,” Jong-Fast would probably say with a straight face. Jen Psaki skipped past denial and went straight to anger, insisting the press is outraged at the discovery. That performance angle is part apology, part gaslighting.
Psaki said, “It is an end to what has been an unpredictable, incredibly tumultuous, at times fascinating — simply because of the political story — and ultimately, deeply enraging political career for Graham Platner,” Psaki said. “Enraging for all of us and we have covered this race from the very beginning, on purpose, because I think it’s important we don’t put our heads in the sand and just project on all of you what we think and only talk to people at a table in Washington, D.C. I think one of the most important things we can do is listen to voters, to watch and to try to understand what is happening in this country. Even if it doesn’t totally make sense.”
That statement exposes a bigger problem: the media’s selective outrage. Platner’s red flags were not subtle. From joking about extremist imagery to vile social posts and disturbing allegations from former partners, the record is messy and public.
https://x.com/WesternLensman/status/2075178705001820599
Where was this same energy when Republican candidates were smeared with baseless claims or when critics pointed out symbolic tattoos that clearly had different historical meanings? The double standard is obvious to anyone paying attention. Conservatives watched the press weaponize tiny items into career-ending scandals for some, while giving grace and context to others.
Journalists who claim to “listen to voters” need to actually report what voters should know, not sculpt a narrative to fit a preferred outcome. Platner’s online history included crude, abusive remarks and reckless rhetoric that mattered long before anyone called attention to it. Voters deserve plain reporting on behavior and character, not theatrical confessions of belated shock.
Accusations of sexual assault and abusive behavior circulated for weeks, and they were sometimes buried or framed as partisan attacks. That handling sent a clear message: allegations matter differently depending on who the accused is and which party benefits. The public loses trust when standards slide based on political calculations.
Some Democrats rushed to defend Platner or minimize the damage, proving that politics trumps principle for too many on the left. Defenders were ready to explain away tattoos, shrug at abusive conduct, and accuse critics of political motives. That reflex undermines the “believe all women” language often invoked for political advantage.
Look at the pattern: high-profile left-leaning figures have a history of elevating or forgiving bad actors when it serves their agenda. From celebrity types to would-be power players, loyalty to faction often overrides basic decency and accountability. That’s not a partisan conspiracy, it’s practical politics—and voters see it.
Meanwhile, reasonable Republicans and independents who value stability and ethics are left to pick up the pieces. Susan Collins, a pragmatic senator viewed as moderate, became a scapegoat in the rush to an easier political narrative. Attacking her record with exaggerated claims about who sent whom “to war” was political theater, not sober analysis.
Psaki and others can stage their righteous outrage, but actions speak louder than statements. If the media truly cared about vetting candidates and protecting voters, they would apply the same scrutiny across the board. Until then, millions will correctly view this as yet another episode of selective coverage and elite damage control.
