nbk35zw":1qbfflg3 said:
Interesting. Salk is the reason I am listening again. I moved from Seattle in 1989 for college and have lived in east coast cities since. Maybe it is just an east coast thing, but my God, Brock is boring. To me, Salk saved the station.
And what's doubly interesting, and ironic, is that he went back east and got run out of Boston, his home turf.
Chad Finn":1qbfflg3 said:
Salk is from here, but it never seemed that way on the air. One local host once referred to him as Diane Chambers, the pretentious outcast amid the barroom family on “Cheers.” Frasier Crane may be more fitting. This is his home, but his professional home is Seattle.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/ ... story.html
And this:
DJ Smith":1qbfflg3 said:
Whomever at WEEI thought it was a good idea to bring you to Boston to replace a guy like Glenn Ordway, must be a certified lunatic. Thinking that this guy could come in and try to blend in to a town where we can see right through people who are just putting up a fake persona... Mike Salk never fit in Boston.
DJ Smith":1qbfflg3 said:
Salk still couldn’t connect with the fan base around New England and even his co-workers which is just further proof that he is not a very good fit in here and frankly not an adequate radio personality to begin with.
http://chowderandchampions.com/2015/01/ ... mike-salk/
This is just to share the perspective from the folks in Boston, because it did seem like that's where Salk would thrive but it went the opposite way. Maybe more than geography, it's about why people listen, what they're seeking. I agree Brock can be very boring, but he has an insider's perspective without being condescending or elitist about it. He knows Xs and Os and can explain them without droning on and losing the big picture. That's why I tune in, or used to.
One of my least favorite things to hear from anybody, radio or otherwise, is incredulity. It's okay to point out problems and outrageous wrongdoing in the world, even better if that leads to talk of solutions. But Salk acts like he has a PhD in Incredulousness and it plays kind of false for me. He'll go on a "can you believe this?!" kick for 15 minutes on topics that I've read about and already know his whole premise to be deliberately false. He'll intentionally leave bits of the story, or certain quotes, out of it in order to rile up listeners.
Example: a recent article about the top GM-Head Coach pairings had PC and JS at #3. Salk went on and on, incredulously, about the duos at #1 and #2 and how unworthy they were, etc., etc. He railed against this article. Well, I read the thing prior to his rant and the author explicitly said: these top 3 could be interchangeable, consider them the best, then there's everybody else. But Salk omitted that so he could fill up air time with his hot air. I don't like sports radio for blustery hyperbole and persona-promoting. I want informed sports discussion.
But to all their own; subjectivity is all good. Nobody's wrong for liking what they like.
