Journalism or Fanfiction? The Guardian’s Sanitized Portrait of Hasan Piker

I’ve always had a love-hate relationship with The Guardian. Usually, I consider that a mark of quality; a good media outlet shouldn't just blow smoke up your backside or tell you exactly what you want to hear. However, after reading Steve Rose’s recent profile on Hasan Piker, I feel compelled to respond.

We're not talking about opinions here or me being mad that they aren't subscribing to my echo chamber. Frankly I think this is a massive let down to the profession. It is a critique of what appears to be a deliberate attempt to run defense for a content creator who has refused to engage with genuine pushback and is currently benefiting from what looks like an aggressive PR rehabilitation campaign.

I'm honestly not sure why The Guardian would have wrote something like this. Normally I'd push it down to being just a fan of Hasan or a paid piece. But that's neither things I'd throw at them. So I'm honestly clueless, anyway, let's get into it.

The "Bus Driver" Defense: Hand-Waving Abuse

The article opens with Piker's "Bus Driver Test" this is an idea that online controversies are too complex to explain to a normal person in 30 seconds. The author uses this to dismiss the "Free Kaya!" incident, where Piker was confronted in Dublin regarding the treatment of his dog (Kaya).

Never mind the bus driver; trying to explain the significance of this particular event might well take the rest of this article.

This is a convenient way to brush aside a stark pattern of behavior. We aren't just talking about a single incident with Kaya. Fans and critics alike have cataloged clips from old broadcasts that show a troubling history of how Piker handles animals. The author frames this as "too online" to explain, but I disagree. Telling a bus driver, "This guy has a history of mistreating his dog," isn't a long story. It’s a character flaw that the article actively chooses to ignore. He does reference this later on in the article that people went through old footage, but he didn't connect the dot the entire way. It was like "Yeah some people did find some evidence but I'm not here to tell you about that". What is the point then?

Aesthetic Over Substance

Throughout the piece, there is an uncomfortable focus on Piker’s physical appearance. We are told he is "tall, muscular, fashionable and handsome," and "too alpha" to fit leftist stereotypes. So the right hate him. This framing reads less like a journalistic profile and more like a fan writing about their favorite streamer. The only thing we didn't get was his shoe size.

The article lists his nicknames like "the Joe Rogan of the left" but fails to engage with why he earns them. It mentions his allegiance with politicians like Zohran Mamdani, yet conveniently omits that Mamdani publicly had to condemn Piker’s infamous comment that "America deserved 9/11." And yes, the author mentions it surfaced as an attack ad, but that's not telling the whole story is it? Zohran had to condemn it, live during a debate. Weird how that wasn't mentioned?

The "Work" of a Reaction Streamer

The article describes Piker’s work schedule with awe:

He usually broadcasts live for seven or eight hours straight, talking off the cuff about current affairs...

Here, the author fails to grasp the reality of the content. "Broadcasting for 8 hours" often includes long stretches of "chair reacting," where Piker leaves a video playing while he is not even in the room, or when he is actively eating.

More concerning is the "off the cuff" nature of his commentary. Piker effectively sources his worldview from his Twitter/X feed. Watch any stream, and you will see dozens of tabs open to X posts. To contrast to other political streamers that go through court documents, read indictments, and go as far as livestreaming themselves reading the founding articles of the US. It is an abject worry that Piker hasn't been held to task on his laziness.

This lack of preparation leads to gross misinformation. We saw this clearly during the "JDAM" incident, where Piker confidently blamed Israel for a hospital explosion that evidence later attributed to a misfired rocket from within Gaza. When challenged, he didn't pivot to facts; he got angry and doubled down. That is the danger of "talking off the cuff" to an impressionable audience, and it's a danger The Guardian glosses over entirely.

And I'm not comfortable with just saying that's a one off. He constantly does it. You can watch any of his streams, sit with a notepad, take notes, take 5 seconds to google and find so much stuff to push back on straight away. There's just no point because his audience doesn't care. But for some reason The Guardian is trying to attract their readership to him.

The View Count Addiction

The article mentions Piker playing video games as part of his "communal" hang. In reality, Piker’s relationship with gaming highlights his addiction to metrics.

He has previously entered his own Discord server to express outrage that his fans weren't watching him play games, obsessed with the dip in viewership that occurs when he switches away from political rage-bait.

Even his own community recognizes this behavior. It isn't about the hobby; it's about the number in the corner of the screen.

And while the author notes the chat "scrolling by," they conveniently ignore the content of that chat. Piker’s community is frequently unhinged, yet the article treats them as passive background noise rather than a radicalized echo chamber.

The "Self-Made" Myth and The Erasure of History

The article states his career "started out" with The Young Turks, noting it was co-founded by his uncle, Cenk Uygur. This is where the lack of research becomes negligent. The author breezes past the nepotism as if it were a footnote. Hasan was fast-tracked into media because his family is the media elite of the online left.

The piece also leaves out the era of "Bro Tips," a segment Hasan hosted that was filled with the exact kind of toxic misogyny he now claims to crusade against. A simple YouTube search would have revealed this content

Furthermore, the article acts as if Hasan emerged from the ether in 2018. There is zero mention of Destiny (Steven Bonnell), the streamer who pioneered the political debate space on Twitch with an infusion of gaming and politics. Destiny mentored Piker and introduced him to this audience. The eventual falling out and Piker’s systematic ostracisation of anyone who associates with Destiny is a crucial piece of lore that explains Piker’s isolationist echo chamber. To ignore it is to ignore the foundational history of political streaming. It's why he has on numerous times not appeared on debates with Destiny claiming he'd be banned from Twitch, as if he can't ever stop streaming ever, or is actually at risk, despite his Golden Boy status. Allegedly Twitch has previously made sure sure this bans align on his days off.

I'd actually go as far to say that such an article pitting Hasan vs the Right is inaccurate. They're constantly sniping from the sidelines at each other, causing problems. Destiny is currently engaging with a massive tour of US colleges and debating with people IRL, which I think is especially mad after the Kirk shooting. And Hasan hasn't bothered to mention it at all because of his association to it. It's childish and pathetic.

Opinion here, but I'm near convinced he'd rather Trump be president than work constructively with Destiny to enact Democrats in power. And his fans might read that and go "OBVIOUSLY", but that's mental illness at the end of the day.

The "Material Conditions" of a Multi-Millionaire

“Regardless of its flaws... they have done a phenomenal achievement in greatly improving the material conditions of the average Chinese person,” he tells me.

It is fascinating that Hasan loves to talk about "material conditions" for everyone else, while the interviewer politely ignores the material conditions of Piker himself.

We are talking about a "socialist" streamer who lives in a $3 million West Hollywood mansion, drives luxury vehicles, and wears designer clothes that cost more than his viewers' monthly rent. The Guardian attempts to frame his wealth as just him being "fashionable," completely sidestepping the glaring hypocrisy of a man hoarding wealth while preaching redistribution.

The author writes about Piker "leveraging his henchness" for photoshoots but fails to ask the obvious accountability question: How does being a hyper-consumerist multi-millionaire serve the working-class movement? It doesn't. It serves the brand of Hasan Piker. Watch a Hasan stream and you'll notice one glaring thing. Everyone in his chat seems to think they're on the team, with Hasan. It's a big club ladies and gentlemen, and we aren't in it.

Failing the "Bus Driver Test"

The article opens and closes with the "Bus Driver Test," suggesting Piker is grounded in the real world. This is the biggest joke of the entire piece.

If you got on a bus and told the driver, "I scream at Twitter threads for 8 hours a day, ban anyone who disagrees with me (including 60 month subs), call myself a socialist while wearing a $1,000 shirt, and radicalize young men into thinking America deserved 9/11," the bus driver wouldn't just tell you to get off. They’d likely drive you straight to a psych ward.

The author claims Piker "does not shy away from... engaging with his normie friends." This is a deflection. You cannot claim to be "grounded" when your entire business model relies on parasocial exploitation and avoiding legitimate pushback. The theory actually is that Hasans friends are so afraid of the audience he has, and the power he has, and how much he throws his toys out the pram, they just go with it rather than have a spine. Numerous of his co-hosts and colleagues have references to this because of how little they actually do push him back on.

Conclusion: Press Release, Not Journalism

I’m just taking everything one day at a time.

This article wasn't an investigation; it was a press release. Steve Rose and The Guardian had an opportunity to ask hard questions of one of the most influential and controversial voices in American media. They could have asked about the numerous issues brought up in this post, the copyright theft of other YouTubers' content, the dangerous rhetoric on foreign policy, or the blatant hypocrisy of his lifestyle. They could have put him to task over his China trip, or seemingly why his moderators are out of control doxing people in chat anytime they say anything negative to Hasan.

Instead, they chose to write a puff piece about how handsome he is.

We believe that influence comes with responsibility. If traditional media outlets like The Guardian refuse to do the bare minimum research on the figures they prop up, then independent platforms will have to do it for them. Hasan Piker loves when his enemies hate him, but what he hates most is exactly what this article failed to provide: Accountability.