Thank You, Chad Finn

Distinguishing between polemics written only for the publicity controversy brings and those making valid points is difficult. Even though its author might not acknowledge it, any diatribe published in a high-profile platform will attract attention only because it's a diatribe. That said, Boston Globe blogger Chad Finn's polemic Thursday, on WEEI, squarely falls into the latter category.

Finn's column is a defiant, articulate line in the sand against the city's putrid sports talk radio station. While the Globe has never liked WEEI and vice versa -- their styles are polar opposites and its writers are banned from appearing on the air -- Finn had the courage to unleash so many people's private dislike for the only sports radio game in town and place his name on top of what he wrote. (And unleash emotions he did. There were 811 reader comments, as of late Friday afternoon!)

I've addressed my annoyance with the station before in these pages, though, obviously, only have about 0.0000001 percent of the audience Mr. Finn has. Really, any opportunity to criticize WEEI is worth it, and he accurately captures so much of my opinion. As a side note, Dale and Holley's loose, welcoming, cool and insightful midday show is exempted from all of the below. I love listening to them, as done Finn. OK, Finn's highlights:

Point 1: "They [WEEI] think the station’s success somehow reflects on them, that we tune in for their shrill banter, contrived characters, and prefabricated opinions. We don’t — never have, never will. We listen because we love sports, our beloved teams are enjoying a remarkable run of success, and WEEI happens to have both access and broadcast rights." Two good friends always marvel at how I listen to sports talk radio. However, I grew up listening to a superior station and I love sports, though none of Boston's teams could qualify as "beloved" to me. I'm interested in what happens in the sports world and journalists' reporting and analysis on it.

Point 2: "Yelling the loudest doesn’t make you right." Why do so many of the station's hosts, mainly during the morning and afternoon rush hours, talk over each other so much and belittle the callers so often? The shows are cacophonous and irritating, with few, if any, points completed. Why do the hosts only rarely acknowledge a caller making a good point? Admittedly, there are many idiotic points. However, the hosts craft their arguments so narrowly there's no way they can say to a caller, "I agree with you," because it seems each argument has an infinite number of qualifiers, which means their arguments have no core meaning.

Point 3: "Have a well-considered opinion and the knowledge to defend it." I recognize Mike Adams' evening show is meant to have a certain "frat-boy cabana" atmosphere and emphasize "good times" over "serious discussion." But it's truly embarassing how little knowledge he seems to have of the broader sports world. It's astonishing how often he has to turn to his support staff to fill in the details of teams' records and players' names and statistics. This is the equivalent of a cardiac surgeon turning to her nurse for a reminder on where the aorta is.

Point 4: "...the tone regarding politics and world matters has become so extreme that certain hosts make Dick Cheney look like a beatnik. Worse is the increasingly snide disregard for those with different circumstances, views, and — the case certainly can be made — pigment." This addresses John Dennis and Gerry Callahan, the morning hosts, who, five years ago, were briefly suspended after comparing an escaped gorilla from the Boston zoo to inner-city high-school students attending schools in wealthy, high-performing suburbs through a state program. (Again, yes, this really happened.) Many of their other political comments are not much better. Can someone please tell them that there is a Democratic president and Democratic Congress because they were voted into office, i.e. the public at large wants this?

I haven't listened to WEEI much this week, though have heard snatches of the hosts ragging on Finn without mentioning him by name. Of course, it's reasonable for them to be angry -- someone has very publicly sullied their names and reputations. However, I hope the column and the many comments supporting Finn prompts the station to re-examine what it does. (I like to think Dale Arnold and Michael Holley have read it and shook their heads to say, "Yup, Finn's right.") If it's the number-one rated sports station in town, largely because it's the only sports station in town, why not use that as an opportunity to elevate the discourse? At the very least, I hope the hosts don't dismiss Finn by saying, "He has no idea what it's like to be a talk show host. He's just a blogger." Because as those hosts endlessly criticize and nitpick athletes and politicians, they really have no idea what it's like to be those people, either.