BRW: Sarandis to leave WEEI

[Bob Nelson]

On 10/2/05, John J. Francini <francini@mac.com> wrote:

> I'd heard about that. So that the poor dears won't develop a complex
> or something like that. Drivel.  As Homo Sapiens, we are what we are.
> We're wired (not culturally conditioned, but _wired_) to compete
> against one another. To even think that it can be whitewashed out of
> us is intellectual folly of the worst kind.

Which is why things like Little League are good because it teaches kids about
winning...and losing...and how to handle it. How not to get too "high" about
winning, or too "low" about losing. Yes, you'll see the losing team in
the Little
League World Series, and the 12 year old players might have a few tears
when they lose (and yes, it's a lot of pressure) but the kids are learning about
competition, and life. Trying, working, and dealing with adversity.


> I guess the idea is that, to the seriously liberal mind, sports
> stadia and the games therein are a throwback, a stark reminder of our
> baser, competitive natures.  Therefore, if we must have the damnable
> things around, complete with overpaid Neandertals on the field and
> nearly-as-bad fans frothing at the mouth in alcohol-induced frenzy,
> _we_ (the better-than-thou types) are damn well not going to let it
> be paid for from the public purse.

And they may agree with conservatives, suddenly, about keeping an eye
on "spending" even if it may mean that a new stadium would bring in
revenue. It was good that Robert Kraft spent his own money to build
his new stadium, and yes the state did kick in SOME money for road
infastructure...and yes, there's some tax money now flowing in to
the Foxboro area as a result. But it's good the state wasn't financing any
of Gillette Stadium. It could have easily been a "public-private partnership",
which, as Howie Carr puts it, is when "public money winds up going into
private hands"...and yes, the road improvements might be an example of
that, but at least it wasn't a HUGE amount (compared to what funding of
the _stadium_ by the state could have been!)


> Indeed. Even though JTTB's stuff is more schtick than the Boston
> hosts (how can it not be when you're hosting a nationwide show?), it
> fits the station's mold much better than Ted Nation.

Yes.

> What I'd never understood was why he had such good ratings numbers.

Well, he does have some sports knowledge and he brings in guests plus
has regular callers like baseball expert "Ray from Lynn". I haven't heard
him lately because when there's no Sox game, or a rain delay, I'll
tune to Ingraham or Hannity on WTKK instead, but it seemed in the past
that there was some interesting discussion (even if Ted himself could
have been a bit of a turnoff.) The "serious, sedate"
feel can be a turn-off to those more into things like "The Big Show".


On kids calling in:

> I'd heard that too. Nothing like public embarrassment to potentially
> sour someone on calling in for years to come.

What's the matter, Ted...afraid one of these kids might take your job
someday? :)