If I had a choice between these two, I would not choose Stranahan.
"Once inside Sputnik’s K Street studio, I sat in on the taping of the main morning show, “Fault Lines,” which is something like a mix of the old TV series “Crossfire” and the conspiracy theory site Infowars. The show is hosted by Lee Stranahan, the former Breitbart reporter who the New York Times said had upended an Idaho town with his exaggerated reporting on a juvenile sex crime, and Garland Nixon, a self-professed Bernie Sanders supporter, former cop and board member of the ACLU. (Stranahan told me he stands by his Idaho reporting.) They pride themselves on coming from two different sides of the aisle, though over a month of listening to them, I rarely heard them disagree."
I don't know Fred, when I was studying historical philosophers I asked the Professor why we never studied 'normal' people/philosophers. I don't recall his actual answer but it was something to the effect that we studied people of 'note'.
It is likely that if I professed a love of Satan and said it loud enough and long enough on the web, I could garner some attention but would it add any real philosophical content leading to a better world? Or would it just perpetuate the cycle of this and that. Progress is difficult and requires the extremes to fuel the energetic motion, but the danger are those that make good arguments yet are reactionary at their core. And that by definition is counterproductive. Putin has no moral argument that would justify his existence. That's my extreme view.