The state of Boston sports talk radio

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
20,557
One of the responses in that Twitter thread is simply:

"Ordway is a pig."

For some reason, that just caught me as very funny.
 

Dick Pole Upside

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2003
4,405
39.932N, -85.848W
Loomer was going OFF on Chad on Early Edition last night. It was bizarre.

"He's a media critic, and shouldn't be criticizing people in the media!!!"

Say what?

Shaughnessy was a co-panelist, and Merloni kept trying to get Shank to agree with him.

On three separate, distinct occasions, Shank stated that he thought Merloni had misread the entire situation and was wrong.

When you can't recruit Shank into a media-on-media tussle, you know you're on the wrong side of the argument.

Trenni couldn't walk him off the ledge either.

tl;dr Framingham Lou is not smart
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
20,557
It's actually "Ordway is pig". Which is somehow even better.
That's great. I like that even better.

"He's a media critic, and shouldn't be criticizing people in the media!!!"
"He's a baseball player, and shouldn't be playing baseball!"
"He's a wood worker, and shouldn't be working with wood!"
"He's a porn star, and shouldn't be starring in porn!"

This game is fun!
 

Chad Finn

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Loomer was going OFF on Chad on Early Edition last night. It was bizarre.

"He's a media critic, and shouldn't be criticizing people in the media!!!"

Say what?

Shaughnessy was a co-panelist, and Merloni kept trying to get Shank to agree with him.

On three separate, distinct occasions, Shank stated that he thought Merloni had misread the entire situation and was wrong.

When you can't recruit Shank into a media-on-media tussle, you know you're on the wrong side of the argument.

Trenni couldn't walk him off the ledge either.

tl;dr Framingham Lou is not smart
They also keep saying I'm the media columnist and I'm not objective. A columnist is, you know, subjective. And when I'm reporting something -- like the ratings, which are basically a template at this point -- I play it as straight as possible (even note the Boston audience for WVEI, even though Nielsen says its not necessary). They don't want the benefit of the doubt. They want constant praise. It's weird.
 

Patriot_Reign

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 21, 2011
431
Hi Chad - Any chance you'll address the Shirley Leung angle? It seems important to note when someone like Bob Murchinson and a Globe columnist work to disrupt a competing media entity.
For instance, was Shirley contacting 'eei advertisers to get a comment for the story, or was it to disparage the station to advertisers in hopes they'd drop their ad dollars? If the latter, it appears highly unethical yet seems to have been brushed under the rug.
It doesn't seem fair to write a column about how it was time for a change based on ratings - when the ratings plunge (at least for the morning show) can be attributed to the actions of the individuals stated above.
 

BJBSJ

lurker
Feb 17, 2019
39
They also keep saying I'm the media columnist and I'm not objective. A columnist is, you know, subjective. And when I'm reporting something -- like the ratings, which are basically a template at this point -- I play it as straight as possible (even note the Boston audience for WVEI, even though Nielsen says its not necessary). They don't want the benefit of the doubt. They want constant praise. It's weird.
There are things said on 98.5 that are every bit as objectionable as what is said on WEEI, yet never reported on. That’s because 98.5 is seen as affable dad jeans radio, but still... That’s most likely Inarticulate Lou’s complaint.
 

amRadio

lurker
Feb 7, 2019
314
Examples, please?
Most people don't sit by the radio with a notebook in hand. If you're actually listening and you think 98.5 hasn't built a brand around creating objectionable/negative slants on the sports-adjacent drama they blab about, you maybe have your dad jeans up a little too high and tight.
 

edoug

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
3,047
I don't listen to either anymore but from what has been written here, the worst stuff 98.5 does is trolling. WEEI, the Metco gorilla comments, The Erin Andrews incident. Both stations can be objectionable, which on is worse?
 

Lose Remerswaal

Missing an “R”
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Most people don't sit by the radio with a notebook in hand. If you're actually listening and you think 98.5 hasn't built a brand around creating objectionable/negative slants on the sports-adjacent drama they blab about, you maybe have your dad jeans up a little too high and tight.
Most people aren't BJBSJ, who, I believe, does this for a living.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
10,790
Radio warz has to be the most tired thing of all time. When Felger crosses the line, like with the Halladay deal or calling out guys for going to see their children be born, he gets called out or gets suspended. There's no vast radio conspiracy. 95% of the shows are miserable and suck, EEI just a bit more so as the results show.
 

Gorton Fisherman

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 26, 2002
2,106
Port Orange, FL
Most people don't sit by the radio with a notebook in hand.
Coming up with a couple examples of what was claimed requires having previously kept detailed handwritten notes? Umm, OK.
If you're actually listening and you think 98.5 hasn't built a brand around creating objectionable/negative slants on the sports-adjacent drama they blab about, you maybe have your dad jeans up a little too high and tight.
I would agree that 98.5 has certain hosts (and we all know who they are) who frequently traffic in creating negative slants about the local teams. However, "negative" is not at all the same thing as "objectionable" (but nice try attempting to conflate the two concepts). Manufacturing negative slants is just standard garden-variety sports talk radio. Even if you were to limit the discussion to "negative" slants, saying that 98.5 has "built a brand" around that notion is an absurd overstatement. There is not a lot of that sort of thing on the morning show; in fact, they have a recurring segment centered around mocking "hot takez", which is often directed at personalities on their own station. And I would say the midday show is a mixed bag at best on that count.

All of the above is actually besides the point, though, since the claim made above was that there were "objectionable" (not negative) things said on 98.5 all the time that just aren't reported on for whatever reason. I'm just asking for a couple examples. EDIT: got some now.
 
Last edited:

Gorton Fisherman

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 26, 2002
2,106
Port Orange, FL
There’s Jim Murray wishing that a caller’s children die.
That's kind of a dumb statement by Murray (who I am no fan of), but it is certainly NOT him wishing for a caller's children to die. Either your English comprehension is bad, or you're just grasping.

Bertrand implying that Hanley Ramirez can’t read.

The strange repeated use of the term “the player” primarily when discussing minority players, seeking to frame them as objects instead of people.

Felger slanders people for 4 hours every day.
Never heard the Bertrand comment. I'm curious what this statement actually was. Details?

I've listened to the station a fair amount over the years, and I've never heard any evidence whatsoever of hosts on 98.5 using "the player" to specifically refer only to minority players. Again: examples? Frankly this sounds like some bullcrap you made up.

I agree with @JCizzle above, the one truly objectionable thing I can remember Felger saying was the Halladay thing, and he was definitely called out on it, and made an on-air apology. Even he knew he had crossed the line.
 
Last edited:

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
12,312
https://twitter.com/defnotgg/status/1029477247743414272?s=21

There’s Jim Murray wishing that a caller’s children die.

Bertrand implying that Hanley Ramirez can’t read.

The strange repeated use of the term “the player” primarily when discussing minority players, seeking to frame them as objects instead of people.

Felger slanders people for 4 hours every day.

Listen long enough and they all say something that will make you cringe or is objectionable. WEEI makes you cringe more frequently though.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
7,278
Listen long enough and they all say something that will make you cringe or is objectionable. WEEI makes you cringe more frequently though.
Put a mic in front of anyone and tell them to talk for 4 hours a day, 200 days a year, and you're going to hear something objectionable out of them eventually. If not, they're not trying.
 

amRadio

lurker
Feb 7, 2019
314
Coming up with a couple examples of what was claimed requires having previously kept detailed handwritten notes? Umm, OK.

I would agree that 98.5 has certain hosts (and we all know who they are) who frequently traffic in creating negative slants about the local teams. However, "negative" is not at all the same thing as "objectionable" (but nice try attempting to conflate the two concepts). Manufacturing negative slants is just standard garden-variety sports talk radio. Even if you were to limit the discussion to "negative" slants, saying that 98.5 has "built a brand" around that notion is an absurd overstatement. There is not a lot of that sort of thing on the morning show; in fact, they have a recurring segment centered around mocking "hot takez", which is often directed at personalities on their own station. And I would say the midday show is a mixed bag at best on that count.

All of the above is actually besides the point, though, since the claim made above was that there were "objectionable" (not negative) things said on 98.5 all the time that just aren't reported on for whatever reason. I'm just asking for a couple examples. EDIT: got some now.
Entirely fair. I wasn't purposely trying to move the line from "negative" to "objectionable" but I do remember being offended to the point of shutting off 98.5 multiple times. Now that another poster brought it up, Bertrand implying Hanley Ramirez maybe couldn't read was among those for sure. Maybe my jeans were the tight ones.
 

Gorton Fisherman

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 26, 2002
2,106
Port Orange, FL
Entirely fair. I wasn't purposely trying to move the line from "negative" to "objectionable" but I do remember being offended to the point of shutting off 98.5 multiple times. Now that another poster brought it up, Bertrand implying Hanley Ramirez maybe couldn't read was among those for sure. Maybe my jeans were the tight ones.
Well to be fair I think this could depend on how you interpreted BJBSJ's use of the term "objectionable". I took it as not meaning, "things I personally object to", a.k.a. things that just sort of piss me off, or make me want to turn off the radio; I also have that reaction fairly frequently during the more troll-y parts of 98.5's programming (which is one of the reasons I don't listen to the station as much as I used to). I think he meant truly offensive types of comments or statements, the kinds of things that should get people reprimanded or fired for saying on-air (e.g. stuff like Felger's Halladay comments, or D&C's Metco gorilla thing). I'm pretty sure BJBSJ meant the latter, given the the nature of the "examples" he eventually provided.
 
Last edited:

BJBSJ

lurker
Feb 17, 2019
39
That's kind of a dumb statement by Murray (who I am no fan of), but it is certainly NOT him wishing for a caller's children to die. Either your English comprehension is bad, or you're just grasping.
“If you have kids, I hope you outlive them.”

While circuitous, it’s not ambiguous.
 

Gorton Fisherman

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 26, 2002
2,106
Port Orange, FL
It's: "Assuming you have children, which is a complete hypothetical since I don't actually know you, I hope you live longer than those children, whom I don't personally know and may or may not even actually exist."
As opposed to: "I HOPE YOUR CHILDREN DIE!" (which is how you originally characterized it)

Not the same thing. Granted, it was kind of a weird/creepy/dumb thing for Murray to say. But your "criticism" is even more dumb, to be honest. It's faux outrage at its manufactured finest.
 

BlackJack

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2007
1,708
It's: "Assuming you have children, which is a complete hypothetical since I don't actually know you, I hope you live longer than those children, whom I don't personally know and may or may not even actually exist."
As opposed to: "I HOPE YOUR CHILDREN DIE!" (which is how you originally characterized it)

Not the same thing. Granted, it was kind of a weird/creepy/dumb thing for Murray to say. But your "criticism" is even more dumb, to be honest. It's faux outrage at its manufactured finest.
Murry sucks. Hard. BJBSJ is stretching to say that 98.5 is just as bad as EEI but don't die on the Jim Murray hill. Until and unless he gets significantly better he's not worth defending.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
12,312
It's: "Assuming you have children, which is a complete hypothetical since I don't actually know you, I hope you live longer than those children, whom I don't personally know and may or may not even actually exist."
As opposed to: "I HOPE YOUR CHILDREN DIE!" (which is how you originally characterized it)

Not the same thing. Granted, it was kind of a weird/creepy/dumb thing for Murray to say. But your "criticism" is even more dumb, to be honest. It's faux outrage at its manufactured finest.
It is the same thing.
 

Gorton Fisherman

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 26, 2002
2,106
Port Orange, FL
It's not the same thing. An actual outrage would have been something like a caller saying "My daughter Jasmine loves Roger Goodell!" and the host then saying "WELL I HOPE YOUR DAUGHTER JASMINE DIES IN A FIRE!". You see, in this instance, we would be talking about an actual person, and the host would be advocating for the death of that person. That would literally be "wishing that a caller’s children die", and would certainly be considered objectionable by any reasonable person's definition. Murray's goofy hypothetical thing? Not even close to being the same thing IMO.

But I really don't want to belabor this particular point any further, because it's getting a tad off-topic; also, the distinction is a subtle one, and subtlety doesn't appear to be the strong suit of the mouth-breathing WEEI crowd, who are really just looking to "score points" or whatever against 98.5. And as @BlackJack correctly points out, Murray is a turd who isn't worth defending.
 
Last edited: