I do think how he comes across (As someone who focuses and dwells on the negative) is a very genuine part of his personality. Unlike Meter, his statements do not come across as contrived.
The first time I noticed it has to be over 10 years ago when he would make appearances on Dick Schapp's "Sports Reporters" (I think he was working for SI then). Around that time, a story had come out how Robert Parish would slap around his girlfriend. As he'll do now with some of their stories during "Headlines", he would consistently find a way of bringing aspects of this story up during his appearances over an extended period of time. I didn't mind since he was taking a hard stand against this and the story was pretty much swept under the rug. But there's no way his focus on that story was contrived. Something about that story stuck with him, and he wanted to make note that a beloved athlete was pretty much getting away with domestic violence.
When you lay out Callahan's life it makes perfect sense for him to walk around whistling zippity-doo-dah. But he has always struck me as someone who instinctively focuses on the negative. That is not a character trait that is dependent on qualtiy of life.
I can buy that opinion or view of him, but I don't believe it personally.
Of course it's an exaggerated act. As Glenn Ordway said in Boston Magazine a few years ago, the key to talk radio is to exaggerate everything. But, are you to tell me, that Gerry Callahan coming off as uninformed in all types of banter is an act?
I don't believe he comes across as uninformed. I think he comes across as abrasive and dismissive, but uninformed? Not at all. The guy is (was?) a pretty damn good writer.
Are you tell me that the reason why Callahan has no substance to any of his arguments is an act?
I completely disagree that his arguments have no substance. In fact, I think he's got as much, if not more substance, than 90% of the people positing in this thread do with respect to their arguments against him. You may not like the substance, you may disagree with the substance, but that doesn't mean his arguments lack them. I happen to politically fall on the same side of most issues as he does, and tend to agree with him more than not. I don't particularly care for his personality and there are times when I roll my eyes listening to him go off on a rant, but for the most part, his arguments are based on facts.
How about the fact that the two morning-drive hosts of a sports talk radio station rarely talk sports, unless a Manny controversy sprouts.
This is the biggest load of bullshit consistently spouted around here. You're right, they've never once talked about the Patriots or Spygate or the Celtics or anything other than Manny Ramirez for the past 15 years. As a pretty long time listener and consistent one, if I had to break it down, I'd say that 60% of their shows are spent talking about sports. You may find yourself in the car at the same time every day during headlines, but they spend a significant amount of time discussing sports, interviewing athletes and coaches, etc. If they didn't talk about sports, you would never hear Meterperel's voice because he doesn't get involved in any discussions outside of sports.
They don't advertise themselves as a sports talk show, they don't pull the wool over your eyes, they don't hide what they are going to talk about, so it never ceases to amaze me when people make this argument. They are a talk show. Period. Sometimes they talk about sports, sometimes they don't, but I haven't seen any bylaws or FCC regulations that require them to talk about anything, so no, it doesn't bother me, not even remotely.
Is that an act too? Yes, the character of Gerry Callahan, "miserable neo-conservative talk radio host" may be exaggerated, but the details and points behind it are not.
What details and what points? That he's a Republican? What are you getting at? If you don't like it, change the fucking channel. It's pretty simple, really.
By the way, when has there ever been a locally produced sports talk radio show, with a strong signal behind it, in the Boston market?
There hasn't and there won't be, as long as D&C and EEI are on the air. Give it some thought and then get back to me on why that is. I mean, if you've got the formula and the balls to take down D&C, go ahead and get some funding and try to dethrone them. ESPN tried, the Zone tried, they've all tried, they've all failed. There is a reason for that.
It's the host's job to get people to listen, but listening shouldn't equate to hating.
I don't hate. In fact, the only people I know that listen that hate are the folks who post at this site, and having been around here long enough, I'm pretty comfortable in saying that SoSH isn't exactly a representative demographic.
Glenn Ordway draws tremendous ratings, but do his listeners hate him?Do people call, or email the show for the sole purpose of berating him? Ordway, though he has his faults, is very good at what does, because he's able to stir the pot a little bit, draw ratings, but also doesn't cross the line of sanity to do it, unlike one Gerry Callahan.
Bullshit, you like Ordway because he shares your opinions. The next time Ordway, the consummate fence-sitter, takes a position will be the first. At least Callahan has the balls to take a controversial stance and own it. Christ, they do entire comedy segments on how Ordway plays both sides of every issue. You don't like Callahan because you don't agree with him. It's ok to admit that.