‘Toucher and Hardy,’ Sports Hub clean up in spring Nielsen ratings ⁠13%

By Chad Finn⁠0%

7/14/2026, 5:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Sunk Cost Effect, Halo Effect, and Primacy Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 32.2% saturation with 94 hits. Analysis detected 435 faulty-reasoning hits from 292 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 29.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠13% (19,184 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 87.60% of the article peer group.

The “Toucher and Hardy” morning show set the standard in the spring Nielsen Audio Ratings and 98.5 The Sports Hub finished first overall and in all day parts in sports radio’s primary demographic. 
Overall, the Sports Hub earned a 12.4 overall share among men 25-54 in the period from April 2-June 24. 
Fellow sports station WEEI was seventh with a 4.2. 
“Toucher and Hardy” had a 16.1 share in the period, the best among any radio show in the market during the period, to finish first in morning drive. 
WEEI’s “The Greg Hill Show” was sixth with a 6.0. 
In middays, The Sports Hub’s “Zolak and Bertrand” program took first (12.3) while WEEI’s “Jones and Keefe” was fourth (5.4). 
The Sports Hub’s “Felger and Mazz” rolled to first place as usual in afternoon drive (13.9), with WEEI finishing in eighth (3.5). 
In late April, WEEI changed its lineup, dismissing Andy Hart and Nick Stevens and ending its “WEEI Afternoon Show” and launching “The Rich Shertenlieb Show,” featuring the former Sports Hub morning show co-host after which it is named as well as Ken Laird and Ted Johnson. 
In the 6-7 p.m. window, the Tony Massarotti-hosted “The Baseball Hour” took first with an 8.9 share. 
WEEI programming, which often includes the Red Sox pregame show, was 14th with a 2.2. 
In the evenings from 7 p.m.-midnight, The Sports Hub, which features “The Joe Murray Show” and had Celtics and Bruins broadcasts in that window, tied WBMX for first (8.8). 
WEEI, which has “The Christian Arcand Show” and Red Sox broadcasts, was ninth (3.3). 
Last spring, The Sports Hub took first overall with an 11.6 share, while WEEI was seventh with a 4.9. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.6%Chad Finn: 2.4%Boston.com: 2.2%Confirmation Bias9.6%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Chad Finn: 1.3%Boston.com: 3.0%Availability Heuristic5.1%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 10.6%Chad Finn: 13.0%Boston.com: 5.7%Framing Effect10.6%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 7.5%Chad Finn: 1.9%Boston.com: 0.5%Status Quo Bias7.5%This article: 15.8%Chad Finn: 3.9%Boston.com: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect15.8%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 2.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.6%Chad Finn: 2.7%Boston.com: 6.2%Negativity Bias10.6%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 11.3%Chad Finn: 2.8%Boston.com: 2.7%Halo Effect11.3%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.5%Chad Finn: 3.3%Boston.com: 1.4%Recency Bias6.5%This article: 11.3%Chad Finn: 2.8%Boston.com: 0.4%Primacy Effect11.3%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.3%Chad Finn: 2.8%Boston.com: 3.8%Appeal to Authority11.3%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.5%Chad Finn: 1.9%Boston.com: 3.1%Hasty Generalization7.5%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 6.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.6%Chad Finn: 2.4%Boston.com: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.6%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 32.2%Chad Finn: 13.7%Boston.com: 3.8%Biased Writer Voice32.2%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Finn: 0.0%Boston.com: 2.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

292 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.