September 1, 2026
The media’s Hasan Piker obsession is letting Republican Mike Rogers off the hook | Mehdi Hasan
Executive Summary
The media's intense focus on Hasan Piker, a Twitch streamer, during the Michigan Senate race is overshadowing critical scrutiny of Republican candidate Mike Rogers and his campaign's ties to extremist figures. Data shows that Piker has been mentioned in 242 stories over three months, while Rogers's campaign has appointed Lorenzo Sewell, known for his inflammatory anti-Muslim rhetoric, to a senior leadership position without similar media attention. This disparity raises concerns about biased coverage and the need for equal accountability among candidates, suggesting that the media should apply consistent standards across the political spectrum. Addressing this imbalance is essential for a fair and informed electoral process.
Stoic Response
Stoic Meditation for Dawn Practice
Author's Claim
Mehdi Hasan argues that the media's disproportionate focus on Hasan Piker during the Michigan Senate race distracts from the troubling connections of Republican candidate Mike Rogers with extremist figures. He emphasizes that the media should hold all candidates to the same standards, regardless of their political affiliations.
Weighing Against Nature and Logos
In nature, all things exist in a state of balance and fairness. The Stoic principle of logos teaches us to act rationally and justly. Hasan's observation highlights a significant imbalance in media coverage, suggesting a failure to uphold these Stoic values. The relentless scrutiny of Piker, despite his lack of direct involvement in the race, contrasts sharply with the media's silence on Rogers’s association with Lorenzo Sewell, a figure whose rhetoric is deeply divisive.
“If you don’t want people to talk about him, don’t campaign with him!” This sentiment reflects the expectation of accountability in public discourse, yet it raises the question of why similar accountability is not demanded from all parties.
Actionable Reflections
-
Seek Equanimity: As the sun rises, remind yourself to seek balance in your judgments. Reflect on how biases can cloud your perception of fairness in your own life.
-
Practice Accountability: In your daily interactions, hold yourself and others to the same standards. If you find yourself criticizing someone for their associations, consider whether you would apply the same scrutiny to yourself or those you support.
-
Cultivate Awareness: Be mindful of the narratives that dominate your thoughts. Just as the media shapes public perception, your thoughts shape your reality. Strive to discern truth from bias in all areas of life.
-
Engage with Integrity: When discussing political or social issues, ensure you are informed and fair. Challenge yourself to explore multiple perspectives before forming conclusions.
-
Embrace Silence: In moments of anger or frustration, practice the Stoic principle of silence. Instead of reacting impulsively, take a step back and consider the broader implications of your words and actions.
Conclusion
As the dawn breaks, let this meditation guide you towards a more balanced and just approach to life. Embrace accountability, seek fairness, and cultivate a spirit of rationality in your thoughts and actions. In doing so, you honor the Stoic path and contribute to a more equitable world.
Article Rewritten Through Stoic Lens
The Dichotomy of Control: A Stoic Perspective on Media Bias
Understanding What We Can Control
In the realm of political discourse, we often find ourselves overwhelmed by external events—like the media's fixation on Hasan Piker during the Michigan Senate race. This focus, while seemingly out of our control, presents an opportunity for us to refine our judgment and discipline. We must remember: we cannot control what the media chooses to highlight, but we can control our responses to it.
The Nature of External Events
Consider the media's choice to spotlight Piker, a Twitch streamer, over the Republican candidate Mike Rogers and his troubling associations. This disparity in coverage is a reflection of the external world, which is often chaotic and unpredictable. What we can control, however, is our understanding of these events. We can choose to seek the truth and demand equal accountability from all candidates, regardless of their political affiliations.
Discipline in Judgment
The media's relentless coverage of Piker raises questions about fairness and bias. While it is easy to become frustrated with this imbalance, we must exercise discipline in our judgment. Ask yourself: What is the essence of this situation? It is not merely about Piker's prominence but about the standards we apply to all candidates. This is our opportunity to practice discernment—recognizing the need for consistent scrutiny across the political spectrum.
Right Action Amidst Controversy
Let us turn our gaze to Rogers's campaign, which appointed Lorenzo Sewell, known for his inflammatory rhetoric, to a senior position. Here lies another chance for us to act rightly. We cannot control the actions of Rogers or the media, but we can choose how we respond. We can advocate for accountability, demanding that all candidates face the same level of scrutiny. This is a call to action rooted in our Stoic principles of justice and fairness.
Transforming Frustration into Purpose
When we encounter the media's selective coverage, it is easy to feel disheartened. Yet, we must transform this frustration into purpose. Instead of lamenting the media's choices, let us engage in meaningful discourse. We can discuss the implications of biased reporting, fostering a culture that values equal standards and accountability.
Embracing the Stoic Path
In this complex landscape, we must remember the teachings of Stoicism: focus on what is within your control and accept what is not. The media's narrative may be beyond our influence, but our reactions, our judgments, and our actions are firmly in our hands. By embodying these principles, we can rise above the noise and contribute to a more equitable discourse.
Conclusion: The Path Forward
As we navigate the tumultuous waters of political media, let us remain steadfast in our commitment to Stoic virtues. We can control our understanding, our judgments, and our actions. Let us strive for fairness, hold all candidates accountable, and engage in thoughtful dialogue. In doing so, we not only cultivate our own character but also contribute to a more just and informed society.
Source Body Text
Hasan Piker. Turn on cable news. Pick up a newspaper. Log on to Twitter. It doesn’t seem to matter where you get your political news: for the past month, the leftist Twitch streamer has become one of the dominant subjects of coverage, conversation and controversy surrounding the crucial Michigan Senate race between the Democrat Abdul El-Sayed and the Republican Mike Rogers. “I can’t stop talking about him,” the conservative pundit Hugh Hewitt recently admitted on Fox, the rightwing network that also can’t stop talking about Piker, day after day, from morning until night. And it isn’t just Fox. The media analysis platform Ground News aggregated 242 separate stories mentioning Piker from across the political spectrum over the past three months – almost three stories a day. Think about that. Piker doesn’t live in Michigan. He isn’t running for office. He isn’t a member of El-Sayed’s campaign. Most Americans have probably never heard of him. Yet the political press is obsessed. The incessant, relentless coverage of him is bad enough. Worse is the gaslighting – including from Democrats and liberal commentators – over why Piker has attracted so much attention, and why El-Sayed is apparently expected to spend his campaign answering for every provocative thing the streamer has ever said. “You can’t deploy Hasan Piker aggressively in factional primaries and then turn around after you win and say ‘why is everyone talking about Hasan Piker,’” influential liberal pundit Matt Yglesias posted on Twitter/X. “If you don’t want people to talk about him, don’t campaign with him!!” There is just one rather large problem with that argument. Mike Rogers isn’t merely campaigning alongside a controversial supporter. His campaign gave a Michigan-based extremist and religious bigot a leadership title in its faith outreach operation. His name is Lorenzo Sewell. And you’ve probably never heard of him. Sewell, a former gang leader and Black evangelical pastor in Detroit who spoke at Donald Trump’s second inauguration in January 2025, was unveiled by the Rogers campaign last year as one of seven members of the “senior leadership team” of “Faith Leaders for Mike Rogers”. And Sewell’s views are not exactly difficult to discover. He has publicly and proudly described Islam as a “conquering religion” and a “death cult”. He has called El-Sayed an “Islamic jihadist” who wants to impose “Sharia law all over this land”. The United States, he insists, is “not a nation of Muslims. We are a nation of Christians.” Imagine, for a moment, that a senior member of El-Sayed’s campaign had described Judaism as a “death cult”. Imagine that he had accused Rogers of being a white nationalist terrorist. Imagine the headlines. Imagine the cable-news panels. Imagine the demands – from Republicans, Democrats and journalists alike – that El-Sayed denounce him, disavow him, fire him. But Sewell’s vile rhetoric is only part of the story. On 18 August, the pastor co-organized the “Christian Crusader March on Dearborn City Council Meeting” with the far-right anti-Muslim agitator Jake Lang. Lang was charged with assaulting police officers with a deadly weapon over his actions on 6 January 2021, before receiving a pardon from Trump. He also says he doesn’t believe the Holocaust happened “at that level” and has used the N-word and was arrested in Texas in June on a charge of making a terroristic threat. The Dearborn “Crusader” rally co-organized by Sewell and Lang attracted neo-Nazis waving a swastika flag and wearing Nazi armbands. There were also reports of pro-KKK material being distributed during and after the event. Dearborn police made 22 arrests that day. Again: imagine the reaction if a senior faith leader affiliated with El-Sayed’s campaign had co-organized an event that drew people wearing Nazi armbands and waving a swastika flag, and that ended with a bunch of arrests? Would we ever hear the end of it? And unlike El-Sayed and Piker, who first campaigned together in April this year, Rogers and Sewell’s relationship goes back much further, to the former’s previous Senate run in 2024. Rogers spoke alongside Sewell at multiple events during the final weeks of that campaign. So you might assume that the Republican candidate has faced a barrage of questions about his political relationship with Sewell. You might assume that the same reporters demanding answers from El-Sayed about a Twitch streamer would be demanding answers from Rogers about a man his own campaign identified as part of a “senior leadership team”. You would be wrong. I searched the websites of the New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN. Not one of them appears to have mentioned Sewell in its coverage in 2026. The Times covered the “Christian Crusader” rally in Dearborn, including Jake Lang’s role in it, but made no mention of Sewell – or of Sewell’s connection to Rogers. To be clear: this isn’t whataboutism. I am not asking anyone to excuse anything Piker has said, or saying journalists shouldn’t scrutinize him. Nor am I saying they shouldn’t question El-Sayed’s decision to appear with him. What I am asking for is that our so-called liberal media simply apply the same standard to both candidates. If 242 stories about Piker are justified because El-Sayed campaigned with him, how many stories are justified about Sewell, whom Rogers’s own campaign named to a senior leadership team? If El-Sayed keeps getting asked about Piker’s rhetoric, why shouldn’t Rogers have to answer for Sewell’s? Why aren’t reporters asking Rogers whether he disavows Sewell’s description of Islam as a “death cult”? Why aren’t they asking whether he agrees that El-Sayed is an “Islamic jihadist” trying to impose sharia law on Michigan? Why aren’t they asking him to condemn Nazi flags at a “Christian Crusader” rally organized by a senior faith leader on his campaign? Oh, and why aren’t top Democrats also asking those same questions, and demanding answers for them? The near-erasure of Sewell, Lang, and those Nazi flags from the media coverage of the Michigan Senate race, combined with the silence from so many Democratic party leaders about Mike Rogers’ extremist ties, tells us something important. Three things, in fact. First, this was never really about antisemitism. Otherwise, why aren’t literal Nazi flags at an event organized by a Rogers ally a much bigger story than any of Piker’s remarks? Second, anti-Muslim bigotry continues to be seen and treated as a lesser offense in American public life. Calling Islam a “death cult” doesn’t apparently merit a single panel discussion on primetime cable news. And third, Republicans and Democrats continue to be held to radically different rules. If you’re a Democratic candidate, you have to repeatedly answer for the views of someone who isn’t even on your campaign team. If you’re a Republican candidate, your campaign can put someone on its faith leadership team who has a long record of brazenly bigoted rhetoric and never have to worry about any kind of media backlash. That is the real scandal here. Not that Abdul El-Sayed has been asked endless questions about a controversial ally. But that Mike Rogers has been asked none. Mehdi Hasan is the founder, CEO, and editor-in-chief of Zeteo