Little Weak Jeremy and Anonymous – It’s Just Confession! (PART 1)

I get a notification on my Droid when there’s a new comment on the site.   A couple of posts ago I noted that there were a couple of lengthy offerings from Little Weak Jeremy and one of the many Anonymi who offer their views.   They’d have to wait until I could sit at a computer and read them.

As it turned out, they were writing to respond to one another, launching from a strong initial blast from Little Weak.  They were thoughtful, covering several topics that The Nation has found of interest in the past, and one – the nature of The Nation itself – that is of great interest for those of us who mull over the future of The Ticket.  I thought the dialogue was quite remarkable and deserved a wider audience.

Of particular interest are the different generational perspectives.  Little Weak Jeremy is 28, and Anonymous is 38 – almost a man.  Not exactly two different generations, but they listen to the station for different reasons, and both mostly stick with it. 

Some commenters don’t care for long posts, long sentences, or long words.  However, I thought these guys made good points in very interesting ways, so I am posting them here.  (These are very lightly edited in places.)   Little Weak has given me permission to copy his remarks as a post, and I would have asked Anonymous as well, but there are so many of him, or her, that I wouldn’t know if I were being scammed.  (Of course, I suppose anyone could say they were Little Weak, too.)  Anonymous, whoever you are, I hope you don’t mind some extra attention being drawn to your remarks.

This will be posted in three parts over the next week.  I’ll have a wrapup postscript after the final installment.

I hope you enjoy this conversation as much as I did, although I’m sure it will try the patience of some Confessors who prefer more condensed opinions.  But hey, you know me – it helps to talk things out.

Here goes:

Little Weak Jeremy’s Point 1:

Since the disconnect between the aging and the up-and-coming P1 has become a salient issue, I'll fully disclose: I'm 26 and could care less about no-frills sports talk. In fact, I'll probably tune out of a straight-up sports segment, if I have a better option to hand; I'd rather listen to music than listen to the Hardline debate for the 50th time already this season whether Neftali Feliz has lost it. If I'm a captive audience, like at work or when doing chores at home, I'll stay tuned in, but I'm really looking for segments such as E-News, TWISH, Gay/Not Gay (and other obscure products), Homer Call, Biggest Show . . . .

Anonymous’s Response to Point 1:

I'm 38 and yes, I'm an actual Day 1, P1. I enjoy both the sports talk and the guy talk (the latter includes the hilarity and hijinks). The point you make here about your tastes echos ap's point about only listening to the Soul Patch when they mix with CDS, because it has some comedic value. In other words, if it doesn't have comedic value, ap, and so it seems, yourself and those like you two, find little or no interest in the segment or show. My point is, is that yours is, in my opinion (and I believe the numbers back this up) a niche audience that on the whole moves on when they either tire of the comedic brand or their tastes in general take a different or at least a varied turn.

I must say that this niche audience does have many a dedicated listener (e.g., you are commenting on a blog dedicated to the station, and ap runs a site dedicated to the station – an excellent site, I might add). But again, it is a niche audience that on the whole (of course there are always exceptions) will not be along for the ride by the time they hit their early-mid 30s. And I believe, to reiterate from above, it is because they primarily listen to the station for comedic value – and indeed many really don't enjoy sports talk or even sports all that much, if at all. But that does not in any way mean said audience cannot be P1’s.

Little Weak Jeremy’s Point 2:

No, I am not a hard-core sports fan. I don't watch many regular-season basketball or baseball games, and I'll probably miss a few Cowboy games. Hockey? Are you kidding me? Yet I think I can still call myself a P1, and I wonder how many listeners are in my boat. (I am not a member of the Grubes is My Leader boards.)

Regarding whether or not IJB/CDS has what it takes to be a part of the Ticket legacy, I find myself harking back to that "What's so great about Mike Rhyner" question and thinking to myself, well, what's so great about ANY of these guys, that the P1’s would hold such a level of reverence for them as we do? And I think that often, the answer is not sports knowledge. When is the last time George Dunham changed your mind about something with a blazing HSO? I don't feel like most of these guys know anything more about sports than I do; maybe they've watched more, being older and having, well, worked at a sports station for twenty years, but I don't think that a deep knowledge of sport is a strong selling point for ANYBODY at the station. Even Bob is really just a stat-cruncher, from that standpoint.

Anonymous’s Response to Point 2:

I think it's not so much about a host's sports knowledge and their ability to change minds (unless you're talking about Norm and to some extent Bob), than it is the expressing an opinion that many listeners agree with, and would like to put out there but obviously aren't able to. It's akin to people on the political right preferring to watch FOX News and those on the left, CNN or MSNBC.  Like tends to attract like. So your point about feeling that the hosts don't know much more than you about sports is a valid one – though I believe that they really do know their stuff, else they wouldn't have lasted in the market during the early years, when it was their credibility and backed-up HSOs that got the local sports audience's attention. Thus it was and I believe still is a selling point. (And knowing what to look for, and how to use, stats is an art form unto itself.)



You Can't Start Confessing Too Early

 Little Weak Jeremy’s Point 3:

Speaking of Bob and Dan, how did people feel ten years ago when they were thrown together, two Yankees on a Dallas station, and asked to become part of this great thing? Did anybody listen to their show and think, "Man, this is just AWESOME!!!" and immediately put them on the same level with the Musers and Hardline? I wasn't listening then, so I don't know how it was, but as far as I can tell, it seems like those guys were very much the odd men out at that point, yet now they're integral parts of the Ticket family.

Anonymous’s Response to Point 3:

BaD was odd at first. But you have to understand that they came after the whole Rocco fiasco. After Rocco, anyone seemed to be a better fit. The reason why I believe BaD ended up working is because both Bob and Dan (and now Donny) worked their tails off when it came to immersing themselves into the local sports scene and the "Ticket Way." Truly, Stars hockey might have saved them their jobs. It gave them a credibility that would have otherwise been damned elusive for two northerners to find if they were trying to become Cowboy experts (please see the East Coast blowhards on ESPN and the Fan for examples of how this fails). And because they found credibility via the Stars, they then began to branch out into the other teams . . . doing so with skins on the wall.

*     *     *

Part 2 in a couple of days.

Commenters:  Please note that Little Weak Jeremy and Anonymous are Confessor civilians and did not prepare these comments with additional exposure in mind.  They have each devoted time and thought to their opinions, and I am hopeful that comments will partake of the same respect toward these writers as they have shown to one another.