Comments on: Approval Ratings – Nick Cafardo

By: MarkB

MarkB — Thu, 22 May 2008 13:00:20 +0000

Borges-lite. Nuff said.

By: Chris M

Chris M — Thu, 22 May 2008 00:23:26 +0000

Looks like he needs a “press” card inserted onto his top hat…then he can ask FDR what he’ll do about Pearl Harbor.

By: Chris M

Chris M — Thu, 22 May 2008 00:20:11 +0000

Dupont is irrelevant like hockey.

By: Chris M

Chris M — Thu, 22 May 2008 00:16:33 +0000

This can’t be real, it’s too ridiculous.

By: ron

ron — Wed, 21 May 2008 22:03:00 +0000

Early 90’s cut my wife and I off heading into an elavator to the skyboxes at Fenway. Missed the first few batters…..disapprove! Also, please go write a book about Tom Glavine, instead of putting him the column every Sunday.

By: Bob Pollock

Bob Pollock — Wed, 21 May 2008 15:46:50 +0000

Nick is the most boring TV reporter I have seen. He never offers new information and his columns are equallu innocuous.

By: KF

KF — Wed, 21 May 2008 14:47:42 +0000

Too much love for Roger Clemens and JP Ricciardi. Disapprove.

By: Gil Santos

Gil Santos — Wed, 21 May 2008 12:34:10 +0000

My comment was meant for Bruce Allens piece and I have no clue how it ended up here.
I’m not in the business of judging other sportscasters or sportswriters.
I’m too busy trying to do my own job and don’t try to tell others how to do theirs.
Gil Santos

By: Gil Santos

Gil Santos — Wed, 21 May 2008 12:28:20 +0000

A friend alerted me to your piece on the video tape story.I just finished reading it and in a word…..”BRILLIANT.”
I understand people will view me as pro-Belichik in this and that’s fine because I am.
Best regards,
Gil Santos

By: George

George — Wed, 21 May 2008 12:24:13 +0000

This is one of those instances where I’m surprised by the extent of negative reviews. Although I can’t argue with much of this, I find Nick to be relatively benign. I know it’s a sad commentary on the state of local media when I’m voting thumbs up on a guy because he’s not doing any damage, but there it is.

My take on Nick; despite his biases, he reports facts and has a straight-forward writing style. He understands that he’s not the story. He does not engage in hateful, negative, agenda-driven reporting. Unlike Shaunessey or late-stage Borges, I will actually read his stuff when its a topic of interest. Not high standards I know, but there’s not much to choose from out there these days.