Why has c2c am Become so Boring and bland?

[anomalies]

When it's a guest, you need to ask questions to put them on the spot if they don't make sense, not say, 'Well, I believe...,' because I don't give a r@t's behind what Art Bell thinks.  I am tuned in to listen to someone else's point of view, and it ain't the host's!  If we wanted to listen to Art Bell, George Noory or Ian what's-his-name's opinion, they should get their own show, called 'My Opinion ...'  I do wish Noory's interview skills would improve.

thing is, i do tune in to hear what art thinks and what he has to say.  he is intelligent, he has a wide array of life experience to draw upon, he's a great conversationalist, and more often than not his input is responsible for transforming what would otherwise have been a bland, throw-away guest/interview into something memorable.  there are countless examples of that happening. 

if people didn't tune in specifically because of the host, then we'd listen to these guests on any old shit-bag talk show they ended up on... but we typically don't.  most guests themselves don't bring enough to the table to sustain three hours of spoken content.  the host must use his personality, experience, intellect, and his control over the show to snatch a guest's ideas from what would otherwise be a swirling hurricane of concepts and focus them in a package which is presentable in broadcast form. 

i think the guest is just that... a guest.  the host is supposed to make it interesting.  otherwise, anybody could be a host... but few can.

I think they're all intelligent to some degree, though, MV.  But if the guest isn't someone I'm interested in (or the subject matter he/she will discuss is), I don't listen, or I'll go elsewhere (like Jeff Rense).  I don't look at any of the hosts as being authorities on anything.  You can interview authors for years.  That doesn't make you an expert.  Real research makes you an expert, and I don't think any of them are real researchers, except for George Knapp.

The host should be personable, kind, fair, allow the guest to speak unimpeded on whatever their research/book is about, ask the right questions, keep the show going at a good pace, interrupt for commercials, etc.  But, as far as their personal knowledge on the subject?  They only need to have reviewed the author's latest book, and have accumulated some interesting questions.  The producers and researchers working at C2C can help with that, so what you might think of as the hosts' hard work may, in fact, be due to a researcher's hard work.

So, MV, instead of wanting to hear what the guest has to say, you are saying that you listen in to hear the host (especially if he's Art Bell)?

[anomalies]

one more thing, anomalies... i know where you're coming from, and i'm not surprised by you or anyone else who feels the way you do about art.  he often comes across as an impatient, dismissive man who harbors some sort of deeply seeded resentment toward others.  i can't explain it, but i totally see it and understand it.  i have said before that if i were given the opportunity to meet art, i'd turn it down.  i think it would be such a disappointment.  i see it when someone compliments him and he responds with a palpable disinterest.  actually, it's almost a disgust he shows when someone compliments him. 


i furthermore am not impressed by how he's abandoned his children.  as someone who hasn't seen his biological father since age 5 (which, for me, has become a personal choice rather than a circumstance), i understand how disappointing that must be to his kids, particularly with the fame he's acquired.  i don't think he's the kind of guy who has an easy time seeing the world through the eyes of other people, especially as it relates to his own actions. 


in other words... i'll bet art is an asshole.


THAT SAID... i don't care about any of this.  none of it is my business, and it doesn't affect the enjoyability of the program for me.  if anything, with the number of kooks who appear on c2c and who need/deserve manhandling, art's disposition is a boon to the program.  i don't want some guy to come on the show and suggest jesus was from venus and hear the words "absolutely" or "fascinating" follow such a suggestion.  i just wouldn't be able to continue listening to something on the order of that.

I got that feeling from Art right away (that he's an @$$h013).  I didn't even know he abandoned his kids.  That's sad.  That kind of matters to me.  I don't want to enable anyone who doesn't need encouragement, by feeding their egos.  I no longer watch Woody Allen films, and I am disappointed that Roman Polanski escaped the law for so many years after raping a child for his own amusement (no longer watch his movies either - many of them, like Chinatown have sick themes anyway).

At any rate, and to be fair to George, he sometimes chides those callers who are laying it on thick.  (You can hear his voice brighten.)  I dislike the 'absolutely' response that George gives his guests, but he usually doesn't do that with wacky callers or guests. 

[anomalies]

I know how to shake it up!

Next week have a week of American Coast to Coast Hosts!  All week a host would have a guest and a hour to slot for an interview with that guest.  These hosts would come from signing up with the local affliatates.  The only restriction is that they must host within the Coast show genre and have shown an interest in that area.

Each nite there will be three hosts and the last hour would be callers commenting in an open line segment.  Art Bell or Ian would alternate the manning of the phones.  Then, during that last hour, the listeners would supply the winning host through the Instapol.  With four nights you would have four hosts and they would come back for the Friday nite and the winner of the week would be selected.  After four weeks, you would have four winning hosts.  Then, the battle of the Coast hosts would be held.  The winner would get Noory's contract through 2012. 

I do NOT think that would be boring and bland.

funny, angeleyes.  lol

[anomalies]

in the span of Art's career in broadcasting ... how many times do you think he's had to say "TURN YOUR RADIO OFF"?  i'm betting that has something to do with why he seems 'unfriendly' at times.  cause people have a seemingly limitless capacity for stupidity

I don't hold that against him, b_dubb.  Those callers are told at the beginning to turn them.  It must be frustrating for any host to have to tell each individual yet again.

[analog kid]

one more thing, anomalies... i know where you're coming from, and i'm not surprised by you or anyone else who feels the way you do about art.  he often comes across as an impatient, dismissive man who harbors some sort of deeply seeded resentment toward others.  i can't explain it, but i totally see it and understand it.  i have said before that if i were given the opportunity to meet art, i'd turn it down.  i think it would be such a disappointment.  i see it when someone compliments him and he responds with a palpable disinterest.  actually, it's almost a disgust he shows when someone compliments him.

I've been listening to classic coast for many years, and I have a completely different view of Art. I think he's had an incredible level of patience with callers that I'm not capable of. I would have been institutionalized after a few years of having to haggle with callers to get to their point, especially when most of them have to spend air time gushing about how they looooove the host before doing so. It's irritating to me and I'm just a listener.

point taken.

You threw me for a loop there, MV. I'm used to boards that are extremely hostile and confrontational. This is a special place.

[b_dubb]

I am disappointed that Roman Polanski escaped the law for so many years after raping a child for his own amusement (no longer watch his movies either - many of them, like Chinatown have sick themes anyway)

i've seen some evidence that Polanski was practically framed by the police.  the LAPD kept harassing him until he began to consider a plea deal.  he agreed to the plea deal but then the LAPD/District Attorney reneged on the deal and tried to prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law.  was a crime committed?  i don't really know.  but there's at least the chance that some less than straightforward dealings were involved. 


i'm a fan of his films and willing to give him the benefit of the doubt after hearing some of the stories about the LAPD/DA behavior

[MV/Liberace!]

one more thing, anomalies... i know where you're coming from, and i'm not surprised by you or anyone else who feels the way you do about art.  he often comes across as an impatient, dismissive man who harbors some sort of deeply seeded resentment toward others.  i can't explain it, but i totally see it and understand it.  i have said before that if i were given the opportunity to meet art, i'd turn it down.  i think it would be such a disappointment.  i see it when someone compliments him and he responds with a palpable disinterest.  actually, it's almost a disgust he shows when someone compliments him.

I've been listening to classic coast for many years, and I have a completely different view of Art. I think he's had an incredible level of patience with callers that I'm not capable of. I would have been institutionalized after a few years of having to haggle with callers to get to their point, especially when most of them have to spend air time gushing about how they looooove the host before doing so. It's irritating to me and I'm just a listener.

point taken.

You threw me for a loop there, MV. I'm used to boards that are extremely hostile and confrontational. This is a special place.

That's how we roll here, brother.

[MV/Liberace!]

When it's a guest, you need to ask questions to put them on the spot if they don't make sense, not say, 'Well, I believe...,' because I don't give a r@t's behind what Art Bell thinks.  I am tuned in to listen to someone else's point of view, and it ain't the host's!  If we wanted to listen to Art Bell, George Noory or Ian what's-his-name's opinion, they should get their own show, called 'My Opinion ...'  I do wish Noory's interview skills would improve.

thing is, i do tune in to hear what art thinks and what he has to say.  he is intelligent, he has a wide array of life experience to draw upon, he's a great conversationalist, and more often than not his input is responsible for transforming what would otherwise have been a bland, throw-away guest/interview into something memorable.  there are countless examples of that happening. 

if people didn't tune in specifically because of the host, then we'd listen to these guests on any old shit-bag talk show they ended up on... but we typically don't.  most guests themselves don't bring enough to the table to sustain three hours of spoken content.  the host must use his personality, experience, intellect, and his control over the show to snatch a guest's ideas from what would otherwise be a swirling hurricane of concepts and focus them in a package which is presentable in broadcast form. 

i think the guest is just that... a guest.  the host is supposed to make it interesting.  otherwise, anybody could be a host... but few can.

I think they're all intelligent to some degree, though, MV.  But if the guest isn't someone I'm interested in (or the subject matter he/she will discuss is), I don't listen, or I'll go elsewhere (like Jeff Rense).  I don't look at any of the hosts as being authorities on anything.  You can interview authors for years.  That doesn't make you an expert.  Real research makes you an expert, and I don't think any of them are real researchers, except for George Knapp.

The host should be personable, kind, fair, allow the guest to speak unimpeded on whatever their research/book is about, ask the right questions, keep the show going at a good pace, interrupt for commercials, etc.  But, as far as their personal knowledge on the subject?  They only need to have reviewed the author's latest book, and have accumulated some interesting questions.  The producers and researchers working at C2C can help with that, so what you might think of as the hosts' hard work may, in fact, be due to a researcher's hard work.

So, MV, instead of wanting to hear what the guest has to say, you are saying that you listen in to hear the host (especially if he's Art Bell)?

I can't say that I've ever viewed Art as an authority. However, I do view him as a master of his art and I think there is so much more to hosting a good radio show than simply asking questions and serving as a moderator.

I have such respect for Art's broadcast abilities that I do tune in to hear Art first and the guest second. That said, there are guests who will make me more likely to tune in than others.

[MV/Liberace!]

Something I'd like to add...
I started listening to Coast To Coast back when it was the Art Bell Show. For me, it will always be the Art Bell Show. I don't, nor could I ever., view Art as being replaceable. Everybody else is just second rate as host of the show... some more than others.

[anomalies]

I am disappointed that Roman Polanski escaped the law for so many years after raping a child for his own amusement (no longer watch his movies either - many of them, like Chinatown have sick themes anyway)

i've seen some evidence that Polanski was practically framed by the police.  the LAPD kept harassing him until he began to consider a plea deal.  he agreed to the plea deal but then the LAPD/District Attorney reneged on the deal and tried to prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law.  was a crime committed?  i don't really know.  but there's at least the chance that some less than straightforward dealings were involved. 

i'm a fan of his films and willing to give him the benefit of the doubt after hearing some of the stories about the LAPD/DA behavior

It's nice that you are so forgiving.  Had it been you or your sister he raped, and someone accused you of making the story up, and stating that the police 'framed' him, how would you feel then?

Polanski was identified by the 13-year old girl and had just prior to the rape had been in her mother's house, where Polanski picked her up the day of the rape.  I don't remember the whole story, but he was not framed.  The girl testified again within the last few years, and said she doesn't want him to go to jail - she'd rather forget the whole thing.  BTW, her wishes wouldn't matter anyway - she was a child and underage - that's rape. 

The reason her mother let her go off with him was because the mother was greedy and thought Polanski would spend big bucks on her daughter, make her a star or at least a well-paid model.  She thought he was going to take modeling photos that might lead to acting jobs.  She also thought a caregiver went with her daughter, but Polanski prevented her from going, apparently without the mother's consent.  The mother was also naive. 

Polanski is a viper.  When he raped 13-year old Samantha Geimer, he did so against her wishes, because she begged him not to rape her and often said, "No" during this unforgivable act.  Again, whether this rape occurred with or without her consent, she was underage.  It was rape.  See this list of highlights:  Polanski event list.  You will also note that the police didn't charge him right away.  They were careful to check out the girl and her mother's stories first, so where this 'framing' thing comes from is a mystery to me.

[anomalies]

Something I'd like to add...
I started listening to Coast To Coast back when it was the Art Bell Show. For me, it will always be the Art Bell Show. I don't, nor could I ever., view Art as being replaceable. Everybody else is just second rate as host of the show... some more than others.

Since I am not an Art Bell fan like you, it is a little difficult for me to understand why you feel that way, but, point taken.  You feel the way you feel.  Can't argue with that, MV.

[b_dubb]

I am disappointed that Roman Polanski escaped the law for so many years after raping a child for his own amusement (no longer watch his movies either - many of them, like Chinatown have sick themes anyway)

i've seen some evidence that Polanski was practically framed by the police.  the LAPD kept harassing him until he began to consider a plea deal.  he agreed to the plea deal but then the LAPD/District Attorney reneged on the deal and tried to prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law.  was a crime committed?  i don't really know.  but there's at least the chance that some less than straightforward dealings were involved. 

i'm a fan of his films and willing to give him the benefit of the doubt after hearing some of the stories about the LAPD/DA behavior

It's nice that you are so forgiving.  Had it been you or your sister he raped, and someone accused you of making the story up, and stating that the police 'framed' him, how would you feel then?

Polanski was identified by the 13-year old girl and had just prior to the rape had been in her mother's house, where Polanski picked her up the day of the rape.  I don't remember the whole story, but he was not framed.  The girl testified again within the last few years, and said she doesn't want him to go to jail - she'd rather forget the whole thing.  BTW, her wishes wouldn't matter anyway - she was a child and underage - that's rape. 

The reason her mother let her go off with him was because the mother was greedy and thought Polanski would spend big bucks on her daughter, make her a star or at least a well-paid model.  She thought he was going to take modeling photos that might lead to acting jobs.  She also thought a caregiver went with her daughter, but Polanski prevented her from going, apparently without the mother's consent.  The mother was also naive. 

Polanski is a viper.  When he raped 13-year old Samantha Geimer, he did so against her wishes, because she begged him not to rape her and often said, "No" during this unforgivable act.  Again, whether this rape occurred with or without her consent, she was underage.  It was rape.  See this list of highlights:  Polanski event list.  You will also note that the police didn't charge him right away.  They were careful to check out the girl and her mother's stories first, so where this 'framing' thing comes from is a mystery to me.

what i'm saying is that there is some question as to what actually happened. and i didn't say framing.  the DA and LAPD may have seen an opportunity to advance their careers with a high profile case

[MV/Liberace!]

I am disappointed that Roman Polanski escaped the law for so many years after raping a child for his own amusement (no longer watch his movies either - many of them, like Chinatown have sick themes anyway)

i've seen some evidence that Polanski was practically framed by the police.  the LAPD kept harassing him until he began to consider a plea deal.  he agreed to the plea deal but then the LAPD/District Attorney reneged on the deal and tried to prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law.  was a crime committed?  i don't really know.  but there's at least the chance that some less than straightforward dealings were involved. 

i'm a fan of his films and willing to give him the benefit of the doubt after hearing some of the stories about the LAPD/DA behavior

It's nice that you are so forgiving.  Had it been you or your sister he raped, and someone accused you of making the story up, and stating that the police 'framed' him, how would you feel then?

Polanski was identified by the 13-year old girl and had just prior to the rape had been in her mother's house, where Polanski picked her up the day of the rape.  I don't remember the whole story, but he was not framed.  The girl testified again within the last few years, and said she doesn't want him to go to jail - she'd rather forget the whole thing.  BTW, her wishes wouldn't matter anyway - she was a child and underage - that's rape. 

The reason her mother let her go off with him was because the mother was greedy and thought Polanski would spend big bucks on her daughter, make her a star or at least a well-paid model.  She thought he was going to take modeling photos that might lead to acting jobs.  She also thought a caregiver went with her daughter, but Polanski prevented her from going, apparently without the mother's consent.  The mother was also naive. 

Polanski is a viper.  When he raped 13-year old Samantha Geimer, he did so against her wishes, because she begged him not to rape her and often said, "No" during this unforgivable act.  Again, whether this rape occurred with or without her consent, she was underage.  It was rape.  See this list of highlights:  Polanski event list.  You will also note that the police didn't charge him right away.  They were careful to check out the girl and her mother's stories first, so where this 'framing' thing comes from is a mystery to me.

the girl was also drugged.

[anomalies]

I am disappointed that Roman Polanski escaped the law for so many years after raping a child for his own amusement (no longer watch his movies either - many of them, like Chinatown have sick themes anyway)

i've seen some evidence that Polanski was practically framed by the police.  the LAPD kept harassing him until he began to consider a plea deal.  he agreed to the plea deal but then the LAPD/District Attorney reneged on the deal and tried to prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law.  was a crime committed?  i don't really know.  but there's at least the chance that some less than straightforward dealings were involved. 

i'm a fan of his films and willing to give him the benefit of the doubt after hearing some of the stories about the LAPD/DA behavior

It's nice that you are so forgiving.  Had it been you or your sister he raped, and someone accused you of making the story up, and stating that the police 'framed' him, how would you feel then?

Polanski was identified by the 13-year old girl and had just prior to the rape had been in her mother's house, where Polanski picked her up the day of the rape.  I don't remember the whole story, but he was not framed.  The girl testified again within the last few years, and said she doesn't want him to go to jail - she'd rather forget the whole thing.  BTW, her wishes wouldn't matter anyway - she was a child and underage - that's rape. 

The reason her mother let her go off with him was because the mother was greedy and thought Polanski would spend big bucks on her daughter, make her a star or at least a well-paid model.  She thought he was going to take modeling photos that might lead to acting jobs.  She also thought a caregiver went with her daughter, but Polanski prevented her from going, apparently without the mother's consent.  The mother was also naive. 

Polanski is a viper.  When he raped 13-year old Samantha Geimer, he did so against her wishes, because she begged him not to rape her and often said, "No" during this unforgivable act.  Again, whether this rape occurred with or without her consent, she was underage.  It was rape.  See this list of highlights:  Polanski event list.  You will also note that the police didn't charge him right away.  They were careful to check out the girl and her mother's stories first, so where this 'framing' thing comes from is a mystery to me.

what i'm saying is that there is some question as to what actually happened. and i didn't say framing.  the DA and LAPD may have seen an opportunity to advance their careers with a high profile case

Okay, you used the words 'practically framed,' so that's what I thought you meant.  I don't know what took them so long to arrest him (or attempt to arrest him).  That does seem suspicious to me, too.  He was not framed.  There is plenty of evidence -  caregiver testimony, mother and victim testimony, etc.

You also says "i'm a fan of his films and willing to give him the benefit of the doubt ..."  That, in my opinion, is no reason to forgive someone for raping a child.

Anyway, MV is also right.  I forgot to mention that Polanski drugged this girl to make her easier to handle.  He is such a b@$t@rd.

[b_dubb]

well i never said he WASN'T a complete monster.  merely that there may be another side to that story

[anomalies]

well i never said he WASN'T a complete monster.  merely that there may be another side to that story

I read somewhere that he had someone help him!  That means he planned the whole thing in advance.  He knew it was wrong.  He is, as you say, a complete monster.

[ringthane]

I can't say that I've ever viewed Art as an authority. However, I do view him as a master of his art and I think there is so much more to hosting a good radio show than simply asking questions and serving as a moderator.

I have such respect for Art's broadcast abilities that I do tune in to hear Art first and the guest second. That said, there are guests who will make me more likely to tune in than others.

Sometimes information needs teased out. Nuanced. Coaxed. Cajoled. Coerced. Influenced. Guided. Sometimes, stepping out of the way, shutting up and letting the guest roll.


Art, 99% of the time, was just a freakin' *surgeon*. Surgical precision. His style may have been slightly aloof/imperial, but his interviews were just incredible.


Ian actually asks very, very intelligent questions, approaches thing obliquely for some surprising insights. Unfortunately, Ian oftentimes doesn't know when to shut the fuck up and will ramble with a 90 second question because he gets so 'worked up.' He's getting slightly better. Both Ian and Art will challenge guests. Occasionally, Ian goes *ballistic* on callers, and sometimes he pulls the trigger too quickly on getting worked up. Ian's sense of humor can be a real turn off for some though.


Knapp is a monster and very similar to Bell as far as show prep, knowledge, and interviewing skills. Art, Ian and Knapp all have skills that allow them to 'switch gears' during an interview when a particular approach isn't working.


Noory has one gear. One. It's about on par with a junior high school newspaper reporter, or maybe People Magazine. Simple, digestable, not too hot nor too cold, much like oatmeal. Pablum. Bland.


Noory's shortcomings really became apparent to me during an interview where the guest made a claim so ridiculous, so outrageous with such utter certainty and Noory did nothing but give a passive 'mmm hmm.' Free pass, and the interview kept rolling on by as Noory let the stupidity go on unchecked.


I don't recall the actual stupidity that Noory let go. But here's the deal -- UFOs, bigfoot, Cryptoids, time travel et al are pretty outrageous claims. You have to suspend some disbelief and 'accept' basic premises for the show to move forward. But certain guests will take a premise and twist it so far outside the realm of possibility without a shred of common sense or logic, and Noory will simply 'mmm hmm.'


On the flip side, George will often toss out certain premises on face value, particularly those tied to a fundamental religious tenet. Making up an example (this isn't an actual occurrence), a guest will speak of a Catholic tenet such as, let's say, transubstantiation... and George will slam on the brakes with his usual whoah whoah whoah, let's slow down here -- I'm spiritual but not religious, we have to be tolerant and open to all religious views, etc etc. George will do this quite a bit with certain mystical topics that are tied to a particular religious tenet that may challenge/oppose another group's beliefs.


If you're going to accept something like the existence of UFOs, then you've got to do the same thing with something similar like transubstantiation.


Noory, in his rush to be non-threatening and please all the people all the time will often avoid/deflect a particular point that could raise interesting debate.

[awguy]

Something I'd like to add...
I started listening to Coast To Coast back when it was the Art Bell Show. For me, it will always be the Art Bell Show. I don't, nor could I ever., view Art as being replaceable. Everybody else is just second rate as host of the show... some more than others.

Was it called "The Art Bell Show" for a while? I always thought the evolution was "Area 2000" then 'West Coast AM" and Finally "Coast to Coast AM"

[awguy]

one more thing, anomalies... i know where you're coming from, and i'm not surprised by you or anyone else who feels the way you do about art.  he often comes across as an impatient, dismissive man who harbors some sort of deeply seeded resentment toward others.  i can't explain it, but i totally see it and understand it.  i have said before that if i were given the opportunity to meet art, i'd turn it down.  i think it would be such a disappointment.  i see it when someone compliments him and he responds with a palpable disinterest.  actually, it's almost a disgust he shows when someone compliments him.

I've been listening to classic coast for many years, and I have a completely different view of Art. I think he's had an incredible level of patience with callers that I'm not capable of. I would have been institutionalized after a few years of having to haggle with callers to get to their point, especially when most of them have to spend air time gushing about how they looooove the host before doing so. It's irritating to me and I'm just a listener.

Think of it from the talk show hosts perspective, they are being asked "hi how are ya?" 18 times an hour. And if it isn't that. it's, "Hey I love your show". A good call screener on any show will ask the caller to just skip over these things and just go right into their point when they get on the air. Of course, Art didn't use a call screener for many years so there was no opportunity to weed these statements out. I'm guessing this may have something to do with the way Art sometimes comes across.

Also consider that some people can't take compliments, it makes them them very uncomfortable. They'd much rather hear criticism, at least that's something they can work with.

At times Art even sounds humble to me. I really don't think he has any Idea just how popular he is.

[MV/Liberace!]

At times Art even sounds humble to me.

that comes across to me as well.  i don't think art's ego is in the way at all.  actually, i don't think there's anything in the way.  he's the perfect host for this type of show.  i have no disagreements with the way he's handled callers or guests.  on the contrary, i think art's broadcast tendencies are what's needed.  my point was simply to say that i think i would be disappointed if i were to meet him in person.

[PhantasticSanShiSan]

I can't say that I've ever viewed Art as an authority. However, I do view him as a master of his art and I think there is so much more to hosting a good radio show than simply asking questions and serving as a moderator.

I have such respect for Art's broadcast abilities that I do tune in to hear Art first and the guest second. That said, there are guests who will make me more likely to tune in than others.

Sometimes information needs teased out. Nuanced. Coaxed. Cajoled. Coerced. Influenced. Guided. Sometimes, stepping out of the way, shutting up and letting the guest roll.


Art, 99% of the time, was just a freakin' *surgeon*. Surgical precision. His style may have been slightly aloof/imperial, but his interviews were just incredible.

.......

I think that sums up Art's method and style to the T.  I never heard the "aloof/imperial" style until I started listening to the streams and had a chance to focus on the subtleties and nuances.  At first I thought "wow, what a prick!", but then you put it in perspective and realize he was gettin' the job done right 99% of the time.

[Vanhalla]

I have just started listening to C2C through an internet website, and have found myself to be addicted to Art Bell.
     However, I have not been able to find any place that I can listen to Mr. Noory's show without having to become a paying member.
     Seems contrary to the whole idea of Mr. Bell's show (namely, the dispersion of knowledge to the masses).
     Am I wrong? Is Mr. Noory NOT doing the primarily for his own benefit? Is there free access to his shows somewhere?

[analog kid]

I have just started listening to C2C through an internet website, and have found myself to be addicted to Art Bell.
     However, I have not been able to find any place that I can listen to Mr. Noory's show without having to become a paying member.
     Seems contrary to the whole idea of Mr. Bell's show (namely, the dispersion of knowledge to the masses).
     Am I wrong? Is Mr. Noory NOT doing the primarily for his own benefit? Is there free access to his shows somewhere?

Don't know of any streams, but current shows are available through torrents.

[b_dubb]

any radio station that carries the show and streams their radio programming online would be a place to go to listen to George without paying.  you'll have to listen to advertising - which kills it for me. 

[onan]

Art bell may be an asshole, may have been a real life jerk to his family and if he was my neighbor I would probably not spend much time with him. But that isn't what I care about with respect to late night radio. I cant be the playground monitor for anyone other than me. Art Bell for whatever the circumstances created a talk show that more times than not was interesting. Was he rude? perhaps but I never really noticed anything that would leave emotional scars. Noory on the other hand is much worse than rude, he is uninterested in his guests and I would suggest that he isn't all that interested in his audience either. Speaking in broad generalities Noory is a boob on his best days and a rectal sphincter on the other days.

I don't think that C2C has an agenda to dumb down America now that Bell is gone. I mean really the audience that listened to Bell had a few "less than Einsteins" in the mix... be honest. The difference - in my way of thinking - was Art and the show were one and the same. Noory thinks this is his chance to be more than he is and I am afraid he is way over his head.

[Marc.Knight]

Why has c2c am Become so Boring and bland?




'Nuff said.

[b_dubb]

why is he dressed like a dentist?

[onan]

why is he dressed like a dentist?

Someone probably said "getting you(GN) to ask an intelligent question is like pulling teeth."

[MV/Liberace!]

why is he dressed like a dentist?

Someone probably said "getting you(GN) to ask an intelligent question is like pulling teeth."

heh heh, nice one.

[conscious comic]

why is he dressed like a dentist?

Someone probably said "getting you(GN) to ask an intelligent question is like pulling teeth."

heh heh, nice one.

LOL!