Sure, left-wing mega-influencer Hasan Piker openly supports terrorism and uses his platform to endorse violence against Republicans. But, much more importantly, according to the New York Times, he’s hot!
Yes, seriously. That’s what a new profile of Piker focuses on, while omitting any mention of his most radical recent controversies. The bizarre puff piece was originally titled, “A progressive mind in a MAGA body,” explaining that “Hasan Piker pumps iron, likes weapons and wears pearls. His brand of masculinity has won him many fans online — and has been a useful vehicle for his politics.”
Hilariously, the New York Times writer seems to suggest that simply being fit and masculine is “MAGA,” unintentionally implying that a man being fat and feminine is liberal-coded.
The profile calls Piker “a very handsome man” who “is 6 feet 4 inches tall and built like a professional athlete, with a square jaw, a beard and a head of thick dark hair.” It’s truly hard-hitting stuff.
Of course, it’s true that Piker is good-looking, and simply acknowledging that in a profile shouldn’t be verboten, even if this particular New York Times writer went a bit overboard. The real problem with this glowing profile is that it paints Piker as some sort of cool progressive “bro” while omitting crucial facts about his violent rhetoric and open flirtation with terrorism.
The profile comes closest to acknowledging the dark side of Piker’s persona in a section titled, “Always Unfiltered, Sometimes Extreme.” Here, it references an infamous comment Piker made years ago that “America deserved 9/11” — yeah, he actually said that — and that he is fervently anti-Israel. But here are a few very recent, highly relevant lowlights from Piker’s work that don’t get a mention in this lengthy profile.
Piker recently went viral for saying Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) deserves to be killed. Piker supported alleged murderer Luigi Mangione and called for him to be freed. Piker did a softball interview on his livestream with someone whom he believed to be a member of the Houthis, a designated terrorist organization, stating in another stream that he has “no issue” with the Houthis despite them being terrorists.
These are just a handful of examples. When you take even a cursory look at Piker’s commentary, it becomes clear that “always unfiltered, sometimes extreme” is a massive understatement and fails to capture the violent radicalism that Piker spreads to his millions of adoring fans. That none of these very recent, well-documented examples were mentioned in this New York Times profile is an astounding act of journalistic malpractice.
LEFT-WING INTERNET CELEBRITY CALLS FOR THE DEATH OF A SENATOR AND GETS SLAPPED ON THE WRIST
To be clear, there’s nothing wrong with journalists speaking to and covering radical people, especially when they have the level of influence that Piker undeniably has. But journalists are supposed to ask tough questions and scrutinize powerful people, not wax poetic about how hot they are and downplay the extreme nature of violent radicals because they have nice muscles.
That any of this even has to be said is a testament to just how far the New York Times has fallen. And if people such as Hasan Piker remain trusted voices influencing millions of young people’s worldviews, we’re in for serious trouble.
Brad Polumbo is an independent journalist and host of the Brad vs. Everyone podcast.