MattInTheCrown wrote:
Aggravated Sox Fan Bob wrote:
It is sad. Time marches on. When WSCR inaugurated, it was a blast. Fun to listen to almost always. I heard Bernstein say Friday that the entire original concept has changed. Too much information available too fast. When Sportstalk started, there was time for the knucklehead caller to call and argue with the all knowing clown of a host (North comes to mind) and hours could be consumed with the entertaining arguing. Now, facts are available quickly, and it kills the time to speculate and argue.
The way it works currently, it seems that the only opinions that matter are those of the hosts. And with 3 of these stations up and running this is BRUTAL. You live long enough and watch enough sports, your opinion should be just as valid as any talk show host unless you have fallen off a pumpkin truck.
I don't care what David Kaplan's opinion is! The fact that this goofy show is splashed on Comcast TV makes me long for the unintended comedy of North's TV show.
Danny Mac will be fine. All works out in the long run.
This is a really good point. On RealGM, someone was complaining about the coverage of the Bulls, and the NBA in general. It boiled down to it all being guesswork and rumor. And that's true. The problem is, a serious fan can be extremely informed via a plethora of news sources these days. So what's the every-day reporter or talk-show host to do? Unless they're more diligent than an army of fans, they basically just throw out a bunch of garbage. And let's be honest: most reporters/hosts aren't all that diligent. I regularly find myself yelling at my radio because some host doesn't understand the CBA. But, even if they did, they wouldn't have much more to say than I already know from the internet. I think there needs to be more focus on the entertainment aspect of sports talk. Information-wise, they're utterly out-classed.
You raise an excellent point that I've wrestled with in the past, who should be the expert? I appreciate informed opinions breaking things down into simpler terms, what I don't appreciate is when there is a bias in explaining things. For example, the NHL lockout being twisted into something that the players initiated or perpetuated. There are times when a host (uninformed) will ask a question that leads to a biased opinion.
What makes your point so excellent is that the hosts have the time and availability of information that many of us may not have. I can't drive and surf the internet (effectively), they can get people (CBS, ABC, etc.) who've given more thought or research to something. And if their willing, the h ostscan bring something to the listeners in a timely and thus entertaining fashion,.