Comments on: Jay Severin is back, and Scott Lehigh is watching

By: Josh

Josh — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 20:55:50 +0000

How dare you disagree with Romney’s buttboy? He knows it all, he has all the women, he can cut you off when he starts to lose his tread.

Severin sais he is a libertarian, now that he has joined Talk 1200, he is now a republican?? He is the perfect offspring of Romney, the ultimate Flip flopper

By: Jay Watch is back

Jay Watch is back — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:27:34 +0000

[...] year ago, the Boston Globe’s Scott Lehigh announced “Jay Watch”, an attempt to call Jay Severin to task for “utterances that debase the dialogue.” As far as I [...]

By: linda

linda — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:34:57 +0000

Here are two examples of Jay being Jay. Yesterday he mentioned that Hillary Clinton had broken her elbow. He noted that the Old Jay would have said “Hoof,” but the New Jay says “Funny Bone.” Then today he said he was retracting a statement he made yesterday that Hillary needed a veteranarian, and then he said, “Only Kidding!” He made a point of saying he is who he is, and he has never changed and never will. He went on to say that he has never once lied to his audience. This seems to indicate to me that Jay is temporarily, but only temporarily, muzzled. He couches his words so very carefully, but who is he kidding and how long can it last?

By: DavidFromBrighton

DavidFromBrighton — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 03:00:15 +0000

You know, Jay actually bragged about being on NPR today during his Lehigh rebuttal ….

Virtually every day Jay says something that shows either dishonesty or ignorance, or in some cases distortion without actual falsehood. Earlier this week, for example, he was asking why we hadn’t heard anything about the murder of a soldier by an American Muslim. Well in fact that story had been carried on page A2 of the infamous Boston Globe. Please review past entries in this blog for additional examples of Jay’s difficulty with the truth and watch this space for future examples.

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 02:34:51 +0000

Distortion of truth? I suppose that, juxtaposed with National Propaganda Radio, it must seem such. Granted, I don’t believe everything he says, but most of the information he presents, excluding flagrant, passionate opinion, can and should be verified from reputable news sources. He says the things that the rest of us are thinking and are too afraid to say, the least of which is that much of what is called “journalism” has become officially sanctioned editorial commentary. He cites his sources and listens to those with differing opinions, so long as they are respectful and can substantiate their remarks with fact. I can certainly relate to anyone who has an aversion to Jay’s acerbic remarks, but sadly, most of the substantial remarks are far from lies, albeit things I wish I didn’t know.