Is that unusual?
WEEI has had a couple high profile controversies lately. Is it unusual for reporters to contact sponsors?
NFL sponsors, for instance, were asked for comments about the anthem.
Kirk and Callahan: Done
- Thread starter Vinho Tinto
- Start date
WEEI has had a couple high profile controversies lately. Is it unusual for reporters to contact sponsors?
NFL sponsors, for instance, were asked for comments about the anthem.
Yeah, it seems like a semantic thing to me. Is "explain themselves" how the reporter described their queries to the sponsors or is the act of asking sponsors for comment being spun to seem more negative/accusatory?
"Explain themselves" is a direct quote from the Globe article.
"But defections are on the rise, especially after I contacted advertisers to explain themselves."
The reporter has an agenda which certainly isn't unique but this seems a bit heavy handed to me.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2018/02/13/weei-loses-more-advertisers-wake-fauria-incident/e6EXHy2NVdCJlb1VKMywNO/story.html
"But defections are on the rise, especially after I contacted advertisers to explain themselves."
The reporter has an agenda which certainly isn't unique but this seems a bit heavy handed to me.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2018/02/13/weei-loses-more-advertisers-wake-fauria-incident/e6EXHy2NVdCJlb1VKMywNO/story.html
Yeah, but the 'EEI fellas are claiming "the Globe" is "threatening" advertisers. That's a large stretch from what Leung said she did. Even if there's a thread of truth to what the 'EEI hosts claim, how exactly would the Globe threaten these businesses?
I didn't say they did I was just answering Red's question about if "explain themselves" was something the reporter used or if it was EEI spin.
I have no idea if the Globe is threatening EEI advertisers and wouldn't take EEI's word for it but it isn't hard to imagine that the Globe could be threatening EEI sponsors with bad publicity. From the tone of the article I don't think it is a stretch to think they might be doing that.
Edit: On my previous post I said the reporter had an agenda, Shirley Leung is a columnist so agendas are expected.
Last edited:
It's plausible that she gave them the 'you can be on the right or wrong side of this story, your choice' rap.
What can the Globe actually do to the advertisers if they still advertise on EEI?
Leung could write a story saying "Advertiser X is still advertising on EEI without any plans on pulling their ads" if the company is dumb enough to answer the question on the record. But most companies are media savvy enough to say (if they were still planning on advertising) that either "no comment" or "we are exploring our options and weighing our decision".
It's not like the Boston Globe is powerful enough to start a smear campaign against EEI's advertisers.
And BTW, going after the Boston Globe (owned by John Henry) when Henry's other business (the Boston Red Sox) makes up a bulk of your programming is pretty dumb. Even for Boston Sports Radio's Howard Stern.
Leung could write a story saying "Advertiser X is still advertising on EEI without any plans on pulling their ads" if the company is dumb enough to answer the question on the record. But most companies are media savvy enough to say (if they were still planning on advertising) that either "no comment" or "we are exploring our options and weighing our decision".
It's not like the Boston Globe is powerful enough to start a smear campaign against EEI's advertisers.
And BTW, going after the Boston Globe (owned by John Henry) when Henry's other business (the Boston Red Sox) makes up a bulk of your programming is pretty dumb. Even for Boston Sports Radio's Howard Stern.
Ok. Tell me. What's the evidence that "The Globe," as an institution, has done anything regarding WEEI advertisers.
Minihane has "the right to fight back." Just like Ron Borges and Mike Barnicle have "the right" to condemn people for plagiarism. Or the Kardashian of the week can complain about not being take seriously as humans. But they shouldn't be surprised when people wet their pants with laughter when they do.
It would not surprise me if Minihane saw the Leung column and is either too stupid to understand the difference between a columnist and her employer, or too loaded with testosterone fueled rage to care, as long as the knuckle-dragging plurality of his listeners cheer him on.
Just leaving this here to remind everybody who you're trying to reason with.
Well, it's unusual to the 'EEI guy who signed up for SOSH a couple of weekends ago.
I listen to my fair share of radio. I don't listen to K&C because of the contrived controversies and the racism/homophobia/etc. It's not what sports radio is supposed to be.
Convictions are fine. The eighth grade peer pressure-esque cool-kids-listen-to-this hard sell seems a few notches below the kind of bar I think we like to maintain around here though.
De gustibus non disputandum est, eh?
Another Globe columnist, Kevin Cullen, tweeted out before Minihane's rant "You shouldn’t pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel" along with a link to the article, indicating it was inspired by some animus between WEEI and the Globe, not isolated to Leung.
That's absurd; he mentions Leung by name.
Fair enough. It could be read that way. While I think that that quip is also made in individual pissing contests with reporters (like I think Shaughnessy has used it), I guess I dont care. Neither Minihane nor his partner have ever shield away from trying to wreck people for sins real and imagined.
Just a quibble with regard to the knights of the Globe keyboards... based on the state of the Globes subscription numbers I think they are only buying it by the half barrel now - and a good amount of that is used to print the Herald. Back to the coverage of the spitting contest between K&C and the Globe.
If the Boston Globe is/was actively protecting sexual harassers, then shining light on it is a good thing.
Similarly, if K&C are saying things on-air that are offensive or worse, Shirley Leung is completely within her rights to shine a light on it and to call the people who are literally sponsoring that content, and to ask why. If they support what they sponsor, or if they think it's harmless, they are free to defend it. But if they don't support it, and have been sponsoring it blindly just because ratings numbers or something else, then they deserve to be called upon to "explain themselves." They have already taken a side on this, after all.
Transparency is almost always a good thing. It is perfectly legitimate to "go after" the career of someone whose career is to to terrible things, especially if they do it on the public airwaves. It's also perfectly okay for K&C to use their platform to expose Leung/Globe as shrill hypocrites, or to attempt to. That's how the marketplace of ideas works, and why we value a free press.
Kirk Minihane has a "right" to be pissed. Any of us have a right to be pissed about anything we want to be pissed about, or not. But the Globe has every right to do what they are doing, WRT to calling his sponsors. If the sponsors, once alerted to WEEI's content, don't like that content, 'EEI needs to either get new sponsors, or new content. Kirk Minihane has a right to speak his mind, but he doesn't have a right to a radio slot, and he certainly doesn't have the right to sponsorship dollars from companies who disagree with his show.
Kirk is the biggest hypocrite in town. He pulled this same stuff the last time people were calling for him to lost his job after his Goodell should be killed nonsense. Was whining it isn't right for the media to call for other members of the media to be fired.
Guess he forgot he said Erin Andrews should be fired, and Jack Edwards should be fired, and Jerry Remy should be fired. There's surely more, but I remember those clear as day.
His act wore thin with me quicker than anyone I can remember. He's the Andrew Dice Clay of sports radio.
Kirk said the 3rd greatest day in his life was the day The Big O got fired.
Kirk has also said it is his life mission to get KPD fired.
Kirk has also said it is his life mission to get KPD fired.
I agree with all of this. The WEEI morning show is so bad that I no longer tune in at all. In the afternoon for the drive home I used to like to listen to Holley and Keefe (Dale is okay but I find I like the show more when he is not on) however they spend too much time rehashing the BS from the morning show and I’m starting to view them as guilty by association with the morning show and I view WEEI in general in a negative light.
I wouldn't be surprised if the "sensitivity training" is a work. Kirk takes over the EEI studios at 8 AM and won't get off the air until Linda Pizzuti gets on the phone.
IF the red sox were not tied to WEEI for the foreseeable future, I think they would be on a different station very soon
Sam Kennedy: Red Sox have ‘growing level of concern’ about WEEI
Sam Kennedy: Red Sox have ‘growing level of concern’ about WEEI
Over 10 years, not really for a show that was on top forever before T&R came along. Plus most of the discussion is largely fallout from them being dumbasses, which is generally picked up by local media so it spares many from actually listening. The tone of this thread compared to the T&R thread also speaks volumes about the goals of each show.
I regret that Kirk, who I have never heard for even a minute, has taken attention away from the need for Callahan to be fired.
You guys understand that Minihane is a comedian right? He does a comedy show. It's not an information show. It's perplexing to me that individuals are unwilling to acknowledge that a personality can be a brilliant comedic talent and still be uninformed about complex social issues. It's not for a sophisticated dialogue about the climate crisis, economic inequity, or systemic oppression that brings listeners to Minihane. It's simple comedic stagecraft. He is clearly the funniest radio character since '90s Stern. Minihane is an heir both to Stern, as well as the tradition of insult comedy. He shits on everybody, and is better at it- at least in an improvisational context- than anybody currently working. Admittedly, as an ardent supporter of Senators Warren and Sanders, the lack of factual understanding that lingers behind some of Minihane's takes can be irksome. However, it is possible to divorce the comedic artistry from the under informed political slant. If Jon Stewart or Jon Oliver did 4 hours of extempore radio programming in the morning, I'd probably listen to them. But they ain't walkin through that door... and yes Callahan is an obtuse blowhard, but he's really just there as a prop just like the other characters and callers.
My company did sensitivity training. 1/2 the company did it one day, 1/2 the next. This allowed the company to, you know, still operate? Is that a concept that escaped WEEI?
It’s almost as if the sensitivity training is a transparent PR stunt. Who would have ever suspected?
I don't think the management is using it as a stunt, I assume they legitimately are concerned about advertisers and important programming(Red Sox) leaving the station.
That said, of course they don't need to shut the station down for a day, that is purely being done for the optics.
That said, of course they don't need to shut the station down for a day, that is purely being done for the optics.
I have no problem with doing it. I just thing its insane that a company cant figure out how to do it and stay in business at the same time. Frankly, it makes for a more effective session in smaller groups anyway
That is clearly his intent however I find his asshole act unappealing. Latest ratings are down for the WEEI morning show so perhaps many others find him tiresome as well.
I think everyone gets this. He's acting on the radio, he's playing a character. He's a worse version of Howard Stern. This is exactly what he gets ripped on for and he then insists he's genuine and not playing a character.
I find his character loathsome and annoying.
Is there something newer than the ratings that came out in December? Those are the last I can find and K&C are doing very well.
"WEEI earned victory in the mornings with “Kirk & Callahan’’ finishing first (13.0), one spot ahead of the Sports Hub’s “Toucher & Rich’’ (12.2, plus 0.3 for its online stream).
“Kirk & Callahan,’’ which has been the top-rated morning show in the market in 10 of the last 12 months, picks up an additional 0.8 share for its WVEI-Providence audience located in the Boston market.
It marks the third straight three-month period in which “Kirk & Callahan’’ topped “Toucher & Rich’’ in the 6-10 a.m. time period."
https://www.boston.com/sports/media/2017/12/28/by-any-measure-sports-remains-bostons-top-radio-programming
That above is in reply to bigq, too lazy to go back and quote it now that Northeasten has posted.
"WEEI earned victory in the mornings with “Kirk & Callahan’’ finishing first (13.0), one spot ahead of the Sports Hub’s “Toucher & Rich’’ (12.2, plus 0.3 for its online stream).
“Kirk & Callahan,’’ which has been the top-rated morning show in the market in 10 of the last 12 months, picks up an additional 0.8 share for its WVEI-Providence audience located in the Boston market.
It marks the third straight three-month period in which “Kirk & Callahan’’ topped “Toucher & Rich’’ in the 6-10 a.m. time period."
https://www.boston.com/sports/media/2017/12/28/by-any-measure-sports-remains-bostons-top-radio-programming
That above is in reply to bigq, too lazy to go back and quote it now that Northeasten has posted.
Exactly this. It's a transparent and poor Stern impression. And he doesn't have the charisma to pull it off, plus his topics are way more narrow so he's reduced to this constant casting couch nonsense along with infighting. He's just not good enough at the act to make it tolerable and then claiming it is sincere is insulting to my intelligence.
Both stations have always claimed they were in the lead even when the data showed otherwise. They each tend to fudge numbers so until there is actual published data I wouldn't believe either of them.
Stern is incredibly charismatic, ground breaking and legitimately funny but was also self-depricating. I'm not sure what he's like now, but back when he was married to Allison he would talk about how his penis was small, he'd spend most of his day hiding in his basement masturbating, how ugly he was, he uncomfortable he was around celebrities; stuff like that. It felt like he was just a regular guy on the radio -- a loudmouth, no doubt -- but a guy who was a regular dude.
Minihane doesn't do that. He's all bravado, all the time. Not only that but he plays the tough guy, but when it gets turned back on him, he can't take it.
stern has lost his edge. He is way more about celebrity and being famous than the goofy crazy shit that made me a huge fan of the show from about 1995 to, say, 2010. Maybe it’s age, maybe it’s his new wife...but I haven’t listened in years. In many ways he had become the elitist type he used to make a living off of deriding
Their ratings have been consistently phenomenal, irrespective of whether they happen to be ahead of or behind T&R in a given quarter.
But ratings are not the ultimate measure of programming value, advertising dollars are. While great ratings certainly help attract sponsorship dollars, highly-rated shows have been and can be cancelled and/or moved to satellite radio or worse time-slots, especially if they have a lot of content that premium sponsors don't want to be associated with. I don't have any inside info at 'EEI specifically, but I am absolutely certain that losing Dunkin as a sponsor was a BFD in the back office. When a regular, heavy sponsor drops you publicly like that, it not only puts more pressure on your other sponsors to re-evaluate their brand association, it also tells their marketing departments that your station suddenly has a whole bunch of empty time-slots and that now is a good time to renegotiate rates. For every sponsor who issues a press release that they are cutting ties, there are others who just quietly "refocus their strategy for this next campaign" without making a proclamation about cutting ties.
Marketing, branding, and PR are streaky and fickle. "Any publicity is good publicity" might apply to aspiring entertainers, but it definitely does not apply to large corporations with established brands.
I almost forgot about the Dunkin' Donuts incident from years ago. It's seems almost quaint for the station to loose advertising dollars for trashing one of its sponsors on the air. One thing I notice about K&C is how few ad reads they do, especially Minihane, and I can only remember Callahan shilling for a firm his brother-in-law owns. Felger and Mazz do far more in comparison.