In an Aug. 6, 2026, column about Abdul El-Sayed’s Democratic primary win, The New York Times’ columnist Michelle Goldberg mentioned Hasan Piker, describing him as “the leftist streamer… who expresses jejune sympathies for all sorts of brutal anti-American regimes, Hamas among them.”
Describing Piker’s politics as “jejune,” namely, “very simple and childish” or “boring and not interesting” according to the Cambridge Dictionary, is an astonishing choice of words. It undermines the Times’ recent effort to legitimize Piker and his extremism, which raises the question of why the Times did so to begin with. This choice of words shows what is really “jejune”: not Piker’s views, but rather Goldberg’s journalism.
Piker’s views are well known. To give a few examples, Piker has said that the U.S. deserved 9/11, that his favorite flag is Hezbollah’s, that Hamas is “a thousand times better than Israel,” and that if anyone cares about Medicare or Medicaid fraud, they should kill Senator Rick Scott (R-FL). On one occasion, Piker called for the murder of some property owners and said: “let the streets soak in their… [expletive] capitalist blood” (he later claimed it was an exaggeration and not a literal call for violence).
The Times has featured or extensively written about Piker multiple times in the last few years, fawning over the extremist and giving him an ideological platform. In April 2025, the Times dedicated an entire style piece to Piker, titled “A Progressive Mind in a Body Made for the ‘Manosphere’.” The article featured such hard hitting journalism as describing Piker as “by conventional standards, a very handsome man.” The Times also gave Piker room to claim that his looks are something his haters struggle with, because they cannot claim that he is “not hot.”
In October 2025, The Times’ Ross Douthat hosted Piker on his podcast, with the transcript of the interview titled “Hasan Piker is Flirting with the Revolution” and the subtitle “meet the online star who likes to play with fire.” Douthat provided Piker with ample, friendly space to discuss his ideology. The men also discussed the potty breaks Piker takes while streaming (they last from 22 to 70 seconds).
An Apr. 12, 2026, controversial column by Goldberg’s colleague Ezra Klein called for embracing Piker as part of the Democratic Party, despite his extremism. Piker also wrote an opinion column for the Times in September 2025 and participated in a debate about the politics of petty theft in April 2026. As part of the debate, Piker said he supports stealing from big corporations because they steal from their workers. There are other examples of Piker getting coverage.
If Piker’s views are “jejune” as Goldberg claims, why did the outlet spend all this time and energy promoting him? Does Goldberg disagree with her colleagues? Does she even read their articles in the Times? Maybe Goldberg does not even know the person she is describing in her article?
Goldberg’s dismissal of Piker’s conduct and views is ridiculous considering his biography, on which the Times has reported. Piker is part of an extremely wealthy and politically involved family. Piker’s father, Mehmet, has extensive experience in business and politics. In 2019, he was a founding member of the Turkish Future Party. Piker’s uncle, Cenk Uygur, established the far left media outlet The Young Turks. Piker was part of his uncle’s outlet between 2013 and 2020. Like Piker himself, Uygur also holds extreme views. The British Home Office recently revoked both men’s entry visas, declaring Uygur is a “’serious risk to the public order’.” The move came after Uygur claimed Israel controls 94 percent of Congress, using donations to do so.
Goldberg writes about politics and rights, including progressive politics. Yet it seems she has totally forgotten the advice attributed to civil rights activist Maya Angelou: when they show you who they are, believe them the first time. Do not wait for someone to show who they are 29 times. They know themselves better than you know them. And Piker has shown who he is numerous times, including lately, while wearing a Mao Zedong-style outfit. He knows himself better than Goldberg knows him.
How is it reasonable to argue that Piker’s politics are boring, and/or resemble those of a naïve child? Perhaps Goldberg is making this jaw-dropping claim as a form of self-comforting delusion. After all, she admitted in the Aug. 6 column that she is anxious about El Sayed’s Senate race – and El-Sayed campaigned with Piker. One way or another, readers deserve more serious and accurate reporting from the Times.