For some reason Morning Edition decided to interview the controversial Turkish-American streamer Hasan Piker today. I haven't paid much attention to Piker, except to notice that the Right (in both parties) has been trying to use him to discredit the Michigan Senate candidate Abdul el-Sayed. The Republicans got some unexpected publicity, however, when they showed a picture of Piker in his underwear to the attendees at their midterm convention in September, "during a video montage aimed at depicting the left as radical."
Reporter Leila Fadel didn't seem to know what to do with Piker, which is normal for NPR when it tries to deal with left-wing subjects. In particular she tried to pick at him for being, you know, extreme, comparing him to the right-wing commentator Tucker Carlson.
PIKER: ... And, you know, I'm still very critical of Tucker Carlson because I find his worldview to be not dissimilar to the ideology that he criticizes in Israel, Zionism being an ethno-supremacist, religious supremacist ideology that...
FADEL: That's how you see it.
PIKER: ...Accepts the extermination - yes, that's how I see it. And that...
FADEL: Not everybody sees it that way.
PIKER: No, I understand. ...
I think you have to listen to the audio of this part, because Fadel whispers her responses to Piker's characterization of Israel. She's almost inaudible. Why?
Of course that's how he sees it. Of course not everybody sees it the way he sees it. This is a surprise? I'm reminded of antigay bigots on social media who tell gay people that we should be aware that not everybody agrees with our lifestyle - as if we didn't know that, as if it weren't what we're yelling about. NPR, like American news media, has real trouble dealing with controversy, though with a lot more tolerance for right-wing figures.
The comparison / contrast with Carlson is one more example of centrist media's inability to deal with complexity. They don't know what to make of Carlson's recent about-face on Israel, for example, though it's not new or surprising that people at widely different places on the political map sometimes agree on hot issues if you frame them like poll questions and don't go into their rationales. The pseudo-philosopher Ayn Rand opposed the US war in Vietnam, for example, based on a typically incorrect explanation of US reasons -- that we invaded Southeast Asia and killed millions of people out of "altruism." She still opposed US withdrawal, and "although Rand was a staunch opponent of the draft, for those draft dodgers who avoided military service simply because they did not want to fight communists, she stated that “not only do they not deserve amnesty, but they deserve to be sent to Russia at public expense, or North Vietnam, and stay there." A superficial agreement on one or another political issue doesn't mean equality of opinion.
Based on this sample, I'm not interesting in giving Piker more of my attention, not even in the extended interview available on the NPR app, YouTube and elsewhere. But to each his or her own.
