BZ, I get your point. You're cool with them feeling the loyalty if they want. Fair enough. That's your opinion and you should stick with it. But since you asked, here's my response, explained a little differently than in my last post. "We" is something that fans say. If I'm listening to a radio account of the game, I'd like to think it's coming from an objective source, not spun by a fan perspective. I think that's what made Vin so great (among other things like his sports knowledge, stories, etc). If he was a fan of the Dodgers, or any other team whose games he announced, he wouldn't let that influence his objectivity when calling the game. Now in contrast, you have the two Gnat ultra-homers. They leave little doubt during their broadcasts that they're rooting for the Gnats. For example, when SF hits a HR, Kuiper sounds like he's having an aneurism. When the opponent hits one, his call is subdued. Not all their listeners are Gnat fans - sometimes I have no choice but to listen to the SF feed. If I hear Krukow droning on about how the SF pitcher is getting squeezed by the ump, how do I know if that's accurate, or if it's the fan in Krukow that wants those borderline pitches called strikes? All I'm saying is that they're members of the media. And the media is supposed to report objectively. But I suppose objectivity in sports announcing has gone the way of objectivity in the MSM, and we all have to accept it.