How will Jay Severin live?

There is a lot of speculation that Jay’s return to the airwaves will be accompanied by a pay cut. If that’s true, I wonder if we’ll be seeing his house on the market soon. After all, Jay swore to us last year that he lives “pretty much paycheck to paycheck.” That would imply that a pay cut would seriously impede his ability to keep up with his mortgage payments. Of course, I think he was lying about living paycheck to paycheck. If the reports about his pay cut are confirmed, I hope to get the chance to ask him about this sometime.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. Helen
    Posted June 1, 2009 at 10:16 am | Permalink

    After he made the “paycheck to paycheck” comment, a couple of weeks later he berated a caller by stating that he makes more money in 1 week than the caller does in 10 years. He also said he has a middle class lifestyle – no tennis court, no pool. I wouldn’t call a 17 room, 8 bedroom, 5 1/2 bath stucco “mansion” in need of renovations on Highland Ave. in Manchester by the Sea for $2.2 million with a $1,540,000 mortgage exactly middle class.

  2. DavidFromBrighton
    Posted June 1, 2009 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    There’s a testimonial I’d like to hear Jay read: “I trusted the firm of Stickney and Stickney with my bankruptcy proceedings, and so should you.”

  3. Patrick
    Posted June 1, 2009 at 12:33 pm | Permalink


  4. Helen
    Posted June 1, 2009 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    It’s not hateful in comparison to what Jay has been saying for the past 10 years. It is just exposing his hypocriscy. He is the one who is hateful and he will not change. It’s his MO.

  5. Patrick
    Posted June 1, 2009 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

    Here it is again, the argument that infects this blog in particular, all too often:

    “It’s not hateful in comparison to what Jay has been saying for the past 10 years. It is just exposing his hypocriscy. He is the one who is hateful and he will not change. It’s his MO.”

    Apparently, its okay to lower one’s moral standards as long as they’re better than the standards of which one is criticizing. An amazingly bad concept to have enter the realm of mass application. In fact, judging by the actions of most, it appears it already has reached this status. Helen’s insightful comments just exists as a reminder of this phenomenon.

  6. duli
    Posted June 1, 2009 at 3:48 pm | Permalink


    You need to stop philosophizing and smell the damn roses, buddy.
    No matter how you try to cut out Severin as oh-so-wonderful-source-of-discourse, every way you cut it you turn yourself into an overly sensitive defender of someone most
    sane people consider loony and deranged (charitably) or hypocritical
    and exploitative (uncharitably).

    Get your own blog or get a life.

  7. Patrick
    Posted June 2, 2009 at 6:14 pm | Permalink


    I suppose I fail to understand what your definition of philosophy is. You tell me to “stop philosophizing,” yet is that not what you’re doing as well? Philosophy is a very broad subject matter that encompasses all language, and especially the language of discourse. All too often people want to discern between philosophy and “vernacular ” argumentation. The truth is that the discipline of philosophy is a method used for the understanding of the nature of discourse and how to analyze and qualify assertions. Philosophy has nothing to do with specific words that one uses, and in fact, some of the best minds have figured how to simplify their language to foster better understanding of the arguments that they make.

    Having said this, I feel that I have failed in my desire to be the best “philosopher” that I can be. My argument concerning relative morality has obviously been misunderstood by you, Duli. For that, I apologize, I will try and use more common language to make my assertions next time. Thank you for helping me in my quest.

    On another note, this is a quote from your own posting on one of the other threads.

    “On retrospect, I think my comments to Susan (and perhaps to you) were too harsh
    and showed little thought and no respect. I am actually not like that at all in real life
    and I take back what I said, with full apologies.” (by the way, “In retrospect” instead of “On retrospect”, that just really bothered me.)

    Then this is your post from this thread:

    “You need to stop philosophizing and smell the damn roses, buddy.
    No matter how you try to cut out Severin as oh-so-wonderful-source-of-discourse, every way you cut it you turn yourself into an overly sensitive defender of someone most
    sane people consider loony and deranged (charitably) or hypocritical
    and exploitative (uncharitably).

    Get your own blog or get a life.”

    Apparently you are “like this in real life.” I suppose I am not allowed to have a different opinion than you? I guess I should just find a blog with all like-minded individuals (which by the way, if you are an intelligent and adaptive thinker this should not be possible) and just post responses like “I agree.”

    And finally, thank you Duli. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to come on here and engage in thoughtful debate with intelligent people such as yourself. I will do my best to “get a life or a new blog.” Thanks.

  8. duli
    Posted June 2, 2009 at 8:20 pm | Permalink


    I am protesting the fact that among the many faults you find and point
    out in others, there is not one fault you find in Severin’s rants. In fact, you
    justify them using dubious logic.

    By the way: my email address is Despite the acrimony,
    you can write to me there (if David does not want this conversation continuing here).
    I do value your ideas even if I disagree vehemently with them.

  9. DavidFromBrighton
    Posted June 2, 2009 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

    Oh, for heaven’s sake, no — don’t take the conversation elsewhere! This is good stuff. And it helps my search engine ranking. 8^)

  10. Whyzelle
    Posted June 3, 2009 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    Wow. This is starting to sound personal. “Get your own blog or get a life”. duli, are you suggesting that this blog belongs to you and that you wish to kick Patrick off it? Or at least silence him? That doesn’t seem particularly democratic to me, much less conducive to thought.

    But then… I’m not the biggest fan of censorship.

    But Patrick, you do seem absolutely supportive of Jay. I’m new to this blog so I’m not sure if I’ve missed something, but duli had a point when he implied that you are Jay’s unwavering “defender”.

    In response to a criticism of Jay by David, you’ve said, “vilifying him in a universal fashion is simply unfair […] you cannot form ‘universalized’ opinions about Jay, because you are only listening to a piece of the puzzle. Thats all, strict logic. ”

    Is yours a universally positive opinion? Have you acknowledged some flaws in Jay that would suggest that you are more logical than David? Or are you guilty of this yourself?

  11. linda
    Posted June 3, 2009 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    Patrick, are you Jay? By your writing and thought process, I believe that you are. It is fine that you post here, although it would be admirable if you identified yourself as the person about whom we are speaking. Thank you!

  12. DavidFromBrighton
    Posted June 3, 2009 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

    Linda, Patrick is certainly not Jay. Patrick displays far too much respect for his critics to be Jay.

  13. Patrick
    Posted June 3, 2009 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

    I suppose I ought to be flattered by all the attention I am receiving…

    Concerning my adoration for Mr. Jay Severin:

    I urge all of you to refer to any of my earlier posts. I have never made an argument for anything libertarian or conservative (at least in terms of conventional thought processes, For example, I did make the case for the slippery slope of evaluating speech in terms of its correlation to free speech, but never claimed to be in favor of either.) To my knowledge I never claimed to believe everything out of Jay’s mouth, nor am I actually Jay Severin himself (although I will admit, I would LOVE to have my own radio show!). I have argued that Jay’s rants are a mix rhetorical devices and humor, and need to be understood with a “grain of salt.” I have claimed myself to be a Jay Severin supporter; I support Jay’s show and his wonderful command of the English language.

    I do find it funny, however, that being that I am relatively neutral on Jay’s portfolio of conservative/libertarian arguments that I would be painted in such a biased way.
    I suppose, in a way, being neutral is “bias” all on its own, and is indicative of a defined position. It is in this way that I illuminate the “plight of the neutral.” The neutral will always be vilified as the extreme of the position they refuse to accept. Democrats will call them Republican and vice versa. The plight lies in this misidentification. The Republican will never be called a Democrat, and will always have the comfort of being recognized for his or her beliefs. The neutral will never be recognized as a neutral because they will always be neutral in relation to whomever they are speaking with. Please have some sympathy….

    My opinion is universally ambiguous on all topics…….

  14. linda
    Posted June 3, 2009 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    Patrick, I am sorry if I have offended you. I did not mean to do so. Your speech patterns remind me of Jay’s, although I agree with David that you present a far more civil dialogue. Also, you are far more consistent. I listened to Jay for about 15 minutes while I was driving home tonight. Apparently he has recorded a podcast (not yet on WTKK’s site) which denies every point of Scot Lehigh’s latest article about him. He says he must do this since now he has a young family to defend and Lehigh is a liar. I was thinking that Jay is once again taking an opportunity to recreate himself, this time as a family man, rather than as a great proponent (and customer) of prostitution. For Jay, I believe who he is is fluid within his own mind, and I have to agree with Scot Lehigh that he may have mental health issues, which is no laughing matter.

  15. Patrick
    Posted June 4, 2009 at 10:54 am | Permalink


    No need to apologize, you did not offend me at all.

    While I claimed earlier to want to have a radio show of my own, I want to point out that I do not envy public figures. From President Obama right down to Mr. Severin, their every word is scrutinized to a degree that regular folks, such as ourselves, can not even fathom. Which is why I not only take their speech with a grain of salt, but also with an empathy for the inconsistencies that they may embark upon every so often. Our brains are not made to function at such high level of detail, or at least mine is not. We all say things on certain days and then retract them days later when pushed to by someone who actually remembers what we say. Jay has fours a day, 5 days a week of his speech being put under a microscope by a bunch of people with nothing better to do then criticize or honor him. The truth of the matter is that if you put any of our speech patterns under that same microscope you could probably do very similar labeling. You could find a plethora of inconsistencies that warrant name-calling and cries of mental illness,and find that all humans are subject to this pattern of inconsistency that we/you accuse Jay of. Our brains are subjected to the environment around them and operate in pretty constant flux depending on a confluence of forces that are far beyond our control. It must also be noted that the written or typed word should be held to a higher standard than the spoken word. I can sit here for hours, or even days and craft an appropriate response to a question or critique . Therefore, it must be stated that evaluating your own consistency with in the confines of an internet blog does not make you consistent, it just means you are literate.

    But perhaps you are right Linda, maybe Jay ought to be labeled as mentally ill, because to me, given the amount of BS one must endure in the public forum, you must be crazy to dive back into it, or into it period.

  16. DavidFromBrighton
    Posted June 4, 2009 at 11:17 am | Permalink

    Sorry, Patrick, I can’t let Jay off the hook like that, because a lot of what Jay says he repeats ad nauseum, carrying the same shtick from hour to hour, day to day, month to month. What he said about Mexicans on or about April 30 — and I’ll reiterate, I do NOT think that merited suspension — he had said many, many times before.

    Also, when given the opportunity to retract his remarks, Jay generally doesn’t. Remember “what Jay Severin thinks about the poor?”

  17. Patrick
    Posted June 4, 2009 at 12:41 pm | Permalink


    I wonder, do you find my argument concerning all people to be unfounded? Do you think you, yourself, have not said something inconsistent at one time or another? Or do you think that Jay is special in this regard, and is just especially malicious and happens to transcend the plight of the rest of humanity, and thus needs to be held to a higher standard?

    Sure, Jay has a pattern of rhetoric, but if you think Jay does not utter a few things here and there that he may misplace in the dark reaches of his brain, you are mistaken.

  18. linda
    Posted June 4, 2009 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    Hi, Patrick, perhaps you think that my comment about mental illness is made lightly, but it is not. And sure, anyone may “utter a few things here and there that he may misplace in the dark reaches of his brain.” Many times politicians, especially, for instance, when running for office, might “misspeak.” In the last presidential election, both candidates were criticized for this, although I did not take it seriously whether it was Obama or McCain. Both were exhausted and under tremendous pressure. But this is not what I meant about Jay. I believe that Jay is in the process of a transformation which may or may not be healthy. Yesterday he said that he has never, and will never lie to his audience. Then what is all this nonsense about his love for and frequent use of the services of prostitutes, especially Asian prostitutes? Is this just bantering? Self-aggrandizement? Harmless, charming fun? Let’s say it’s just a combination of these things, and that’s just fine if you want to hear this banter along with your political analysis. Why, then, is he now beginning to talk about “my young family?” I have noted elsewhere that Jay’s talk of family has been sparsely interspersed in his speech for some months now, and for some time before his suspension. He said the other day that it was okay that he was personally criticized before he had a “young family,” but not now. This is where I was coming from when I said yesterday that Jay’s sense of who he is or at least who he represents himself to be is evolving, and it is downright confusing if you listen to him regularly — and I do. Anyone can misspeak, and I agree that we are less likely to do so in writing. However, to keep it to this one simple example, which is it? Is Jay a single swinger, or is he a married father of a young child? If he has decided to keep his personal and public lives separate and create a public personna which is basically a sham, why should we believe anything else he has to say? It is my impression that Jay will slowly talk more and more about his family (child, someday?) and then equate the loose women talk to happening long, long ago, when he was sowing his wild oats. In this way the duality of his image will be meshed into that of loving husband and father. Now Jay’s shifting view of the world is not by any means contained in his confusing appearance is man about town/happily married dad. Take a look at his changing views on the war in Iraq, for example. At first anyone who did not believe in the War on Terror was unpatriotic and a coward. By the time George Bush ended his presidency, Jay was screaming for his impeachment on the same issue and had changed his story to such an extent that it was hard to decipher when Jay changed from Hawk to Dove, or if he had ever been for the war to begin with. So no, Patrick, I am not parsing Jay’s words, although I do teach English in college.

  19. DavidFromBrighton
    Posted June 4, 2009 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

    Patrick, I concur with Linda here. Obviously anyone who does live talk radio is likely to say something they wish had come out differently or that they might not have said if they’d had time to check their facts first. But I do think that Jay speaks in a way that shows either malicious or negligent disregard for the truth. I think he presents information, whether intentionally or carelessly, in a manner that supports his opinions whether or not that information has any basis in fact or reason.

    Look, there’s a difference between saying “I don’t like Obama” and “Obama is without a doubt the worst president we have ever had” and “Obama has already signed into law over a dozen executive orders that are clearly unconstitutional.” (Not that Jay has ever said #3, I’m just using it as a hypothetical.) I’ll never begrudge Jay’s right to make the first two statements, but if he says something like #3 he’d better have some facts to back it up. And you know he says stuff like that all the time. And as I’ve said before, if it were clear that everyone considered Jay to be an entertainer and didn’t take anything he said seriously, I wouldn’t worry about it. But his callers’ statements suggest that he really is having an effect on what people believe.

  20. Patrick
    Posted June 5, 2009 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    You’re argument concerning Jay’s split personality is interesting, well crafted (obviously because you teach English to college students, Congrats!), and dersveres my full attention, so let me dive right in:

    Jay seems to be projecting two different identities, the first of which being a swinging “man about town” ( as you phrased it), the second being a family man who is quite cognizant of his reputation. The latter of which is a recent development, or at least your recognition of it is, as you commented on his recent remarks that he had to retort Scott Lehigh’s article because he has a “young family.” But his swinger personality has been his on-the-air persona for many years now and is the subject of much vilification from his critics. I suppose where I lack the understanding of the leap that you make with your assertion is how this “split personality” makes him mentally ill. Is it because no married man has even tried to portray themselves as a ladies man? Is he supposed to abandon his libido because he is married? Perhaps this is because I am a male, and thus are subjugated to similar “libido issues” but I tend to answer “no” to both of those questions. I would say its a very normal psychological state of mind for most men to want to portray themselves as still sexually appealing (and for most women as well). In fact, the entire institution of marriage seems relatively unrealistic as man is neither monogamous (divorce rate at 50%) nor consistent (people are in operating in constant flux).

    If I may digress for a moment of the subject of flux:

    There is a famous Buddhist metaphor that speaks of the existence of a car that one has had for twenty years prior to the present. Through out the twenty years EVERYthing has been replaced in the car, including the engine (hence the all important qualification of EVERYTHING). The rhetorical question becomes, is this the same car that you had twenty years-ago?

    The metaphor is obviously underscoring the fact that people are constantly changing, and no is the same person year to year, day to day, or even minute to minute. (For those of us in the monotheistic religions as well, the metaphor meant to challenge our concept of a “soul.”)

    In regards to your discussion of Jay’s public and private persona, I would urge you to find one human being in the public lime-light who is purely consistent between both.

  21. Patrick
    Posted June 5, 2009 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

    Man oh man I did not edit that post, forgive me!

  22. linda
    Posted June 5, 2009 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

    Patrick, thanks for the insight that men have libidos; that hadn’t occurred to me. But seriously, I do not know of another married man (perhaps you do?) who speaks so constantly and in such an infantile manner about Asian hookers. I mean, really! What wife would put up with this? I pity Ms. Renee Klock Severin on several levels, but that is for another topic. Do we evolve? Well, truly I hope so. But what happens when we devolve and show a side of ourselves that is less than what we are, because we are hiding or pretending or we think it makes us sound cool? I find this pitiful and not worthy of a man of character, conviction, and intelligence.

  23. DavidFromBrighton
    Posted June 5, 2009 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    Patrick, the problem I have with Jay’s rants about prostitutes, young Asian women, and various other evening pursuits is the hypocrisy. Do you think Jay would pass his father’s character test? Here’s a guy with a wife and child who describes his sexual fantasies to thousands of strangers every day … and that’s the only thing I need to know about him.

  24. Posted June 6, 2009 at 11:10 am | Permalink

    I finally stopped listening to Jay two days ago. There were stages since I started listening years ago: listening but interested, offended, and entertained, listening but straight offended (and then blogging about it), listening while angry (and then calling in), listening but bored, and now I don’t even have the mental energy to personally refute points to myself while driving and taking in all Jay’s insipid, illogical, and biased opinions. So instead of switching back and forth between NPR and TKK, I just stayed on NPR.

  25. linda
    Posted June 6, 2009 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

    Jeremy, this is the decision I am coming to myself. I have called the station (when he called a female caller a slut), written to the station in support of keeping him off the air, written to his sponsors, and read everything available in this latest debacle. Yet he is still there. My only reason for listening now is to wait for his next slip up, which will surely come. But why waste my time thinking about him anymore? Someone said recently that probably half of his audience are people like me who despise him. So why give him the ratings? I’m ready for a Jay-free life.

  26. Whyzelle
    Posted June 7, 2009 at 9:51 am | Permalink

    I’m confused. Would you rather he pretend to be the perfect father? (“Perfect” is a flexible and ambiguous word… but please bear with me here.)

  27. linda
    Posted June 7, 2009 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

    Whyzelle, I would rather that he did not pretend at all.

  28. Whyzelle
    Posted June 10, 2009 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    Would you rather he keep those feelings between himself and his wife? Would you rather the duality of man be a personal issue, kept out of the public eye (or the public ear, as the case may be)?

    How far does your determination to hear the truth extend?

  29. linda
    Posted June 10, 2009 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

    Whyzelle, it is a case of fundamental dishonesty, to put yourself forth, to hundreds of thousands of people, as a single swinger, when you are in fact a married man and father of a child. This is why I answered you that I would rather not have him pretend. Do I think that husbands and wives should keep their feelings between themselves? Of course. I’m not sure what truth you think I want to hear. Do I want to hear details of his, or anyone else’s personal life? That is an emphatic no. Think of any public figure, or for that matter, everybody else. Either they are married or not married. It is not an invasion of anyone’s privacy to “admit” that he is married or single. So why the endless swinging bachelor boasts which sometimes border on the obscene. I heard him one night ask that all children be removed from hearing so that he could make some borderline obscene comments about certain women. What about his own child in the same house where he broadcasts? So I am saying that if he lies so blantantly about his own personal behavior (and who would know about his personal behavior unless he belabored it so frequently?), why should anyone believe anything else he has to say? In another post, David referred to these discussions as Jay’s fantasies. Hear the truth, Whyzelle? No, he can spare me.

  30. Patrick
    Posted June 10, 2009 at 7:02 pm | Permalink


    I write to you with some humility. I am not a college professor, nor do I pretend to have a fraction of the intellectual ability that you seem to possess, but I would like to bounce a few ideas off of you, and gage where I am at as a thinker; in my mind there can be no better way to test one’s abilities than to measure them up to someone who is superior. I also thank you, in advance, for your feedback.

    These are your own words from your last post, and I will use them to address an intellectual confusion that must be the result of my own shortcomings, so please, bear with me:

    “it is a case of fundamental dishonesty, to put yourself forth, to hundreds of thousands of people, as a single swinger, when you are in fact a married man and father of a child.”

    I have expressed, in past postings, that a public figure will always differ from their private persona. You seem to be suggesting, by this comment, that there is a standard of public to private deviation that is acceptable and that Mr. Severin does not uphold this standard. Because I am unable to decode this specific standard myself, I was wondering if you would be kind enough to share where this line can be drawn. Is Jay allowed to express ANY attraction at all to any other females? Should he be more subtle? I would presume that you would allow Jay to refer to a woman as “pretty” or “attractive” would you not? I do not feel that you would rob Jay of his ability to make aesthetic judgments on the air, would you?

    The truth is that this line cannot be universally drawn, and nor should it. Jay is doing what every good showman does, appeals to his audience. Rumors surrounding his recent suspension centered on his ratings dropping in a very important demographic for his show, Age 24-55 MALES. This is and should be Jay’s bread and butter demographic and he had slipped to number fourteen in local rankings. (quite an anemic ranking ) Comments about being a swinger or Asian hookers are simply a byproduct of the almighty quest for ratings. Listeners want a man they can relate to, and all men ages 24-55 have a soft spot for a man who can or wants to charm more than one lady (whether they like to admit or not). You want criticize Jay for his moral hypocrisy, but in reality you’re just attacking the tip of the ice berg. The true “culprit” here is the marketplace, and Jay is just trying to appease it.

    (Side note: David this may be why you’re seeing a different Jay this past week or so. I do worry this tactic may end up alienating some portion of his base though.)

    Linda, you believed that Jay should not share his personal life with his listeners, but its a method for them to relate to him. Some people can appreciate the “swinger” comments and others can appreciate the ‘father of the year” comments, and still some can appreciate both, it’s literally like casting a large net over the population and hoping your grab the best ratings.

    Lastly, you seem jaded about the idea of trusting anything that Jay says because he displays personal inconsistencies. While this may surprise you, I completely urge you to remain jaded. You should not believe every word you hear from these media types. As long as the media’s main goal is profit, the end result will always be compromised journalistic integrity. I come on here and defend Jay because I think he has an amazing radio voice, a wonderful command of the English language, and a desire to spark discourse either through controversy or intuitive, well thought-out rhetorical questions. Yet you want to tar and feather poor Jay in a public square for his moral shortcomings that he displays on his RADIO SHOW. It feels a bit like splitting hairs…

    While I’d like to think I did an effective job outlining the argument of journalistic (and really artistic) integrity being undermined by capitalism, if you would like to read further about this, please research “culture industry,” a concept formulated by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer.

  31. linda
    Posted June 11, 2009 at 8:05 am | Permalink

    Patrick, I appreciate your argument that Jay is seeking to appeal to the demographics of his audience. It makes sense The flaw, not in your argument but for Jay, seems to be that it is not working! I have read many comments to articles and blogs, almost all from men, saying that Jay should stop the nasty talk because it makes him seen gay. Why? I imagine because he is pushing the envelope to the point where his schtick is not credible. Yes, the Asian hookers again. But Jay made a comment one night which even I had to laugh at. He said he had spent the night with someone and woke up beside her only to find that she was very ugly. He screamed with anguish on air that he had done this to himself and blamed it on having had too much to drink the night before. To which demographic do you think Jay was at that point appealing? Now to get back to the point of my last post, what is the problem in admitting that you are a married man, and not even once married but twice married? Jay was married before he started in radio. He and his first wife Kathleen Severin owned the consulting company he speaks about, Severin Avilles (sp?). So the schtick came after the marriage(s), not the other way around. Again, what is the point? Can’t married men think other women are pretty? In the days of the Hollywood star system, handsome leading men had to pretend that they were not married — so that they would appeal to their audience, young women who paid to see their movies! But this is 2009. I have heard from Whyzelle the idea of privacy and the ability to have a private life apart from your professional life. Don’t we all do this? Do we come to work and repeat every word and action that occured at home? Why is whether you are married or not “private”? It is the lives lived within the marriage that are private, don’t you agree? Anyway, this point is fast becoming moot. Jay noted last night that the Globe had done everything within its power to hurt him — and his family — during his suspension. Of course, that is also when he noted that “revenge is a dish best served cold” — whatever that means! Jay talks more and more of his family, which is a good thing. It might just be the beginning of a more honest and therefore appealing Jay.

  32. Patrick
    Posted June 18, 2009 at 10:31 am | Permalink


    First off, I apologize for my lack of response for the past week or so, I have been ill.

    In reference to your first point concerning the laundry list of men who have found Jay’s routine to be not credible, and perhaps comes off as “gay;” I feel that any appeal to any demographic will have its consequences. Jay is not going to be able to come up with the perfect radio persona that just enriches everyone’s lives while also being flawlessly entertaining and iconic. His routine will certainly alienate segments of the population, to think otherwise is unrealistic, and to criticize him for not being able to uphold such a standard is not just incorrect, its incoherent. Most likely, such a desire can be rooted in personal bias overriding logic. The same personal bias that the men you speak of were most likely affected by when judging Jay’s actions. I would imagine that the blogs you were perusing were pretty similar to this blog, and thus carry a transcendent bias that overpowers all other judgments.

    “In the days of the Hollywood star system, handsome leading men had to pretend that they were not married — so that they would appeal to their audience, young women who paid to see their movies! But this is 2009. I have heard from Whyzelle the idea of privacy and the ability to have a private life apart from your professional life. Don’t we all do this? Do we come to work and repeat every word and action that occured at home? Why is whether you are married or not “private”? It is the lives lived within the marriage that are private, don’t you agree? ”

    Again, I must apologize, I feel rather ignorant here but considering the fact that you’re an English professor, I must assume that the error must be on my end. I do not understand your first statement here. Are you implying that its no longer necessary to lie to the audience about your personal life in 2009?

    Moreover, you are suggesting that when you go to your profession of shaping the young minds of this country (thank you, by the way) that you do not divulge personal matters with your colleagues. You feel that is okay to disclose your marital status to others, but not the ongoings of that particular situation. You wonder why Jay does not uphold the same decorum that you have prescribed, and the answer is going to sound familiar, he is a radio talk show host. First off, you cannot prescribe universal standards of personal disclosure across every genre of occupation because every job is different. Second, while you and your male blog friends may find his libido unappealing that does not mean its not something that helps a portion of his male audience connect with him, and I hardly think your test sample of a few male bloggers qualifies as valid data. You’re simply reiterating your past points, and have not really engaged my argument. To refresh my point, I will condense it into a couple of easily understood sentences:

    One cannot make character assasinations about an entertainer that translate to that entertainer’s personal life because the nature of the business suggests a universal application of “showmanship.” You can disagree with his or her method of obtaining an audience, but to feel as if you know that person outside of their profession is just simply naive. It is so naive, that its use is indicative of, again, personal bias overriding logic.

  33. linda
    Posted June 18, 2009 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

    Patrick, thank you for congratulating me, and now thanking me, for being a member of my profession. It is entirely unnecessary, and I find it condescending. Also, I do not have any male blog friends. I have made an argument here about what I consider Jay’s hypocricy, and you have labeled it repetitive. So be it. When someone opens up his personal lifestyle to thousands of listeners, and it is in reality the opposite, you call it show business and I call it lying. We must agree to disagree. Surely, the topic is not worth the length of this discussion.

  34. Whyzelle
    Posted June 19, 2009 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

    Did Jay say that he indulges in sex with young Asian women and prostitutes? Or did he simply fantasize about them?

    I can see why someone would think that Jay is a hypocrite if his broadcasted lectures conflicted with his personal actions. But how is it hypocrisy if his reality doesn’t align with his fantasy?

    In fact, wouldn’t he be hypocritical if on the air he only played the part of the preachy, perfect pater (haha) and silently longed for a life of lechery (hahaha)?

    I hate laughing at my own jokes. Someone laugh with me, please!

  35. linda
    Posted June 19, 2009 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

    He has said he is a strong proponent of prostitution and a frequent customer of prostitutes.

  36. Ron Hofeldt
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

    Jay Sevrin is awesome and a great human being. You guys, I mean really take this to heart please, please, need a life.

    Write that down.

    For your own sake.

    The Hofeldtnator!

  37. Larre
    Posted December 15, 2009 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

    What makes him “awesome”; his lying about his education background [BU]; his advertising agency; his invitation to submit articles to the NY Times op ed page?
    Decisions, decisions, decisions…

  38. Matt
    Posted March 16, 2010 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    Jay is a bullshit artist. I listened to him last week about “all the questions the government will ask you on the census document and how they should not be asking us those questions”. Well, I just got the census and there are only 10 questions, and none of hte ones he was making a big stink about.

    I think it’s time to STOP LISTENING TO HIM!!!

  39. Jay Fan
    Posted May 14, 2010 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

    You all must seriously get a life of some kind. Jay is a radio host, but he is also an entertainer. Lighten up.

  40. DavidFromBrighton
    Posted May 16, 2010 at 7:43 am | Permalink

    Jay Fan: As I’ve said elsewhere on this blog, I wouldn’t bother to do this if Jay and his audience recognized that what spews from his mouth is meant merely for entertainment. But Jay takes himself very seriously, and many in his audience seem to turn to him for “education,” so I feel the need to counter his B.S. with logic and fact.

  41. Jay Fan
    Posted May 17, 2010 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

    Jay is a brilliant political analyst who often goes off the deep end for effect. It has backfired on him several times and he has recently changed his behavior while on the air.

    I always ignore his derogatory comments (about Hillary, for example ) because these comments are for shock factor. And, they are disappointing to those of us who look to him for political analysis.

    When it comes to politically educating those of us who listen faithfully, there is no one better. He tells it like it is.

  42. Eugene
    Posted May 18, 2010 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    I just found this site…fun and funny. How old are Jay’s kids? I had to laugh- he said the other day that if he found out someone in his kid’s school was not immunized he would pull them out because he wouldn’t want HIS kids exposed to diseases. (or something along those lines)
    Anyway, I had to laugh because as smart as he is (or thinks he is) he can be quite clueless. How can one of his immunized kids catch one of the diseases from someone who isn’t immunized??? Duh.

  43. DavidFromBrighton
    Posted May 18, 2010 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    Jay Fan: It’s not the “deep end,” “derogatory,” “shock factor” comments that bother me. I don’t think ANYONE takes him seriously when he slanders politicians or ethnic groups. What’s dangerous is when he flat out lies about facts (e.g. the “death panels” in the health insurance bill) and his audience accepts that as the truth. He is not “educating” you if he is telling you things that just ain’t so.

  44. Dorothy Murray
    Posted June 25, 2010 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    I just wanted to add my comment. I first heard Jay 2 years ago while driving up to Ma from Florida….well, I guess the radio station was just “on” WTKK…and when I heard him I thought he was joking…so I kept listening – wondering when the joke was going to end. But, he continues with his abrasive talking and insulting whomever he likes….He still continues with his disgusting remarks…Someone said they thought he had a “mental problem”….??? Ya Think? I too have written to the radio station and to JAY himself. I wonder why this radio station keeps him on the air? Meanwhile “Jay” (real name)? continues to play games with Boston’s “Best and Brightest”…(he only talks to them you know)! Just change the station…

  45. Juli Woodson
    Posted September 9, 2010 at 9:16 am | Permalink

    WOW! So many comments about Jay Severin. Very entertaining! I started listening to Jay right after 09/11 and I must admit, became hooked. I also have been confused about his personal day he can’t seem to let up about his interests in women, i.e. Asian, mostly…or there are the women newscasters…next thing i know he is claiming to be “married with a young family”. What stands out in my mind the most was the Presidential election right before President Bush was elected. He pushed so hard for that vote among his listeners, it was pathetic. Even among George Bush’s many stupid comments , Jay was right there making excuses for him. Of course, we all know how much he hates the Clintons, so that was not too surprising. Months later, however his tune changed considerably and short of denying that he pushed for his vote, he backtracked considerably. Of course I know what he was doing-choosing the lesser of the two evils. What bothered me was that he did it to the point of lying-he knew George Bush was stupid, why not admit it? His “audience” is smarter than he gives them credit for (despite his “best and brightest BS”. The other day he must have said “pick your nose and eat it” atleast 50 times. I had to change the channell. It makes one wonder……are the bosses upstairs listening???????? Yes, I continue to listen here and there….until I switch the channel over to Sirius, that is.

  46. Realist
    Posted November 19, 2010 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    Wow is right Juli !!! Reading this thread has given me a headache !!! After listening to Jay for more than 10 years, I can honestly say that EVERY comment in this thread is true to some degree. Jay has a great show, this is a great thread and after reading this, I’m certain that his talk show will air for a long, long, long time. For those of you who want to see him go… STOP TALKING ABOUT HIM, PERIOD. And for those who want him to stick around….. keep listening…. I think ‘ll do both !!!!

  47. Jeff
    Posted April 29, 2011 at 9:18 pm | Permalink

    After reading all of your comments I have come to the conclusion that you are all a bunch of self absorbed douche bags that want to have more posts than the next guy. You sicken me. You should all meet in a coffe house somewhere so I don’t have to read your sactimonious stupidity that makes me want to throw up. Now. Onward and upward. Does anyone who is not a ranting self absorbed douche bag have anything real to say?

  48. gail
    Posted May 7, 2011 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

    Just SO glad he’s gone…..hateful man.

  49. nick
    Posted September 4, 2011 at 9:45 am | Permalink

    I call Jay “the big clown”, Michael Graham is the “little clown”.

  50. Steve
    Posted August 14, 2012 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

    Nick – that must make you the infinitesimally small clown. Can you tell me if the Planck length is measured correctly? Thank you.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>