First, welcome to the board. That being said:


Yes, but those interviews are usually poorly-conducted. They don't ask poignant questions very often, and more than likely Hanley will feel the need to butt in when the guest is talking, in addition to Mike Mulligan letting out a loud laugh when no joke has been told. They're very bad interviewers.


No, they actually aren't. They repeat other peoples' talking points and state the obvious on all sports. When they're not doing that, they're asking what callers think in lieu of actually formulating their own opinions. They talk in circles and generally never have an actual premise to any conversation they start or take part in.


I'm not sure how minor the complaint is when they spend most of the show trying to add humor where there isn't any. I could see if their bad jokes and barbs were only sporadic, but they do it frequently enough that it kills the flow of an already bad show. That's tough to do without effort. It's like they try to outdo each other when it comes to making the worst joke at the worst time.


I don't disagree about the North comments, as his bigotry is the reason I stopped listening to his show shortly after 9/11. However, I disagree that M&H are a "million times better" than North. I think their show is just as horrible, but in a completely different way.

Now that I think of it, Biggs is pretty much their guy. He doesn't join any of the other hosts on the station. Part of it may be the newspaper connection, but the other part may be the fact that he sucks and the other hosts know it.