• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Has Art Bell abandoned Coast to Coast AM?

G

Gnarlodious

Guest
I know I've complained before about Ian Punnet's constant Moslem bashing and political commentary but last night's Coast to Coast was too much. It consisted of one long interview with a man who lives in Panama claiming tobacco is not only not harmful but has many medical benefits. It sounded like 3 hours of free advertising for Big Tobacco.

It looks like Art Bell has let the weekend hosts abandon the classic C2C format, or maybe he has no real authority over the show. Does anyone have any inkling what the plan is? Is Art going to come back and get the show back on track or is this hiatus permanent?<P ID="signature">______________
• K5ZN</P>
 
> I know I've complained before about Ian Punnet's constant
> Moslem bashing and political commentary but last night's
> Coast to Coast was too much. It consisted of one long
> interview with a man who lives in Panama claiming tobacco is
> not only not harmful but has many medical benefits. It
> sounded like 3 hours of free advertising for Big Tobacco.
>
> It looks like Art Bell has let the weekend hosts abandon the
> classic C2C format, or maybe he has no real authority over
> the show. Does anyone have any inkling what the plan is? Is
> Art going to come back and get the show back on track or is
> this hiatus permanent?
>

I listened to that show. And to be fair, Punnett did challenge the man's assertions. But, admittedly, he wasn't very forceful with his challenges.

Also, to be fair, I believe that the doctor was talking about smoking pure tobacco---not the "tainted tobacco" cigarettes that most people smoke---which contain God-only-knows how many different chemicals in it! Something like 300, I've heard.

As a matter of fact, there's been a longstanding debate about is it really smoking the tobacco itself that kills smokers, or is it all of them chemicals that a cigarette smoker ingests along with the tobacco that kills them??

Didn't someone mention something about how Native Americans who have smoked natural tobacco for many years have had a much lower rate of lung cancer (percentage-wise) than non-Native Americans who have smoked cigarettes (for many years) with chemicals in them do?----I think that's where the debate comes from. Natural tobacco versus chemically-enhanced tobacco.
 
I was more interested in the future of the show rather than a debate about tobacco. I seem to remember this happening once before, then Art stepped in and took over the show and got it back on track. Looking at the trend over the last few months I see a gradual watering down of the show until it's of arguable listening value.

Maybe then we'll all get a night's sleep :=)<P ID="signature">______________
• K5ZN</P>
 
> I was more interested in the future of the show rather than
> a debate about tobacco. I seem to remember this happening
> once before, then Art stepped in and took over the show and
> got it back on track. Looking at the trend over the last few
> months I see a gradual watering down of the show until it's
> of arguable listening value.
>
> Maybe then we'll all get a night's sleep :=)
>

Well, I'm not sure what your point is. C2C has always been about whatever. Be it aliens, black helicopters, Bigfoot....and even such controversial things as....is tobacco good or bad for you? The content of the show is essentially the same as it was during the "Art Bell era", nothing has changed about that.

Now, just exactly how entertaining and/or interesting some of its hosts have been (past and present) can definitely be debated---I will grant you that!
 
> > I was more interested in the future of the show rather
> than
> > a debate about tobacco. I seem to remember this happening
> > once before, then Art stepped in and took over the show
> and
> > got it back on track. Looking at the trend over the last
> few
> > months I see a gradual watering down of the show until
> it's
> > of arguable listening value.
> >
> > Maybe then we'll all get a night's sleep :=)
> >
>
> Well, I'm not sure what your point is. C2C has always been
> about whatever. Be it aliens, black helicopters,
> Bigfoot....and even such controversial things as....is
> tobacco good or bad for you? The content of the show is
> essentially the same as it was during the "Art Bell era",
> nothing has changed about that.
>
> Now, just exactly how entertaining and/or interesting some
> of its hosts have been (past and present) can definitely be
> debated---I will grant you that!

And at least Mike Siegel isn't in the mix ;)

Art was on last night/this morning, talking about Hurricane Katrina. He's taking a reduced role on the weekends, and is now on most Sundays. Noory will host the first Sunday of each month. Punnit seems to be the permanent Sat/Sun host.

- nate81<P ID="signature">______________
Nathan Obral
University Partership Representative: LCCC Student Senate, Elyria, Ohio

The Morning Love with Mark and Sarah - Fridays 9AM EDT on Duck Radio!</P>
 
I don't know that Bell owns, or controls, the show in any way.<P ID="signature">______________
Greetings from Ohio-where the governor wants everyone to know he's sorry.</P>
 
> I don't know that Bell owns, or controls, the show in any
> way.

I don't know for sure, but I think he is the man in charge overall.

Post 881 dedicated to 88.1 WAYF West Palm Beach, the station that turned me on to Christian CHR the day it signed on!<P ID="signature">______________
"Get educated. Read stuff on the web and believe all of it."
-- Phil Hendrie
http://theradioblog.blogspot.com</P>
 
> Didn't someone mention something about how Native Americans
> who have smoked natural tobacco for many years have had a
> much lower rate of lung cancer (percentage-wise) than
> non-Native Americans who have smoked cigarettes (for many
> years) with chemicals in them do?----I think that's where
> the debate comes from. Natural tobacco versus
> chemically-enhanced tobacco.


I don't know about this but I would not go there considering recent reserach. Nicotine is a structural analog of the vitamins Niacin and Niacinamide (forms of vitamin B-3). A former researcher at the University of New Mexico/Albuquerque hypothesizes that, basically, nicotine substitutes for niacin/niacinamide in the enzyme *NADPH* and that this causes cancer. Bottom line - nicotine is actually the carcinogenic agent because it changes the enzyme...in addition to the other chemicals in the crap. Search for VITALINE on the web for a scientific explanation.
 
Whitley Streiber???

I think Whitley Streiber would be the best bet for one of the weekend hosts. Whitley hosted Dreamland when Art cut back once before, but then Premeire stopped Dreamland completely. Whitley and his wife Anne now have shows on the IBC radio networks - Whitley has the original title (and music!!!) "Dreamland" and Anne has "Mysterious Powers."

As the co-author for one or more of Art's books, Whitley Streiber would be an excellent contributor to the coast to coast family.

Whitley and Anne, show archives, daily science news updates:

http://unknowncountry.com
 
> Well, I'm not sure what your point is. C2C has always been
> about whatever. Be it aliens, black helicopters,
> Bigfoot....and even such controversial things as....is
> tobacco good or bad for you? The content of the show is
> essentially the same as it was during the "Art Bell era",
> nothing has changed about that.
>
> Now, just exactly how entertaining and/or interesting some
> of its hosts have been (past and present) can definitely be
> debated---I will grant you that!
>
That's my feeling also. C2C's guests have as much to do with how interesting the show is also. Their guests have become a cast of regulars with recycled topics. Richard Hoagland/NASA, Linda Moulton Howe/Crop Circles, Michio Kaku/Quantum Physics. Get the idea?
I think C2C realizes that as well. Not too long ago C2C began putting an ad on their site looking for new people to interview. You know the show needs help when you have the Zeta lady on as a guest.
Maybe one of the radio xperts on this site can be a guest and we can hear all about the wonderful technical world of radio. They've already had discussions centering on Marconi.
 
> C2C's guests have as much to do
> with how interesting the show is also. Their guests have
> become a cast of regulars with recycled topics. Richard
> Hoagland/NASA, Linda Moulton Howe/Crop Circles, Michio
> Kaku/Quantum Physics. Get the idea?
> I think C2C realizes that as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------

All well and good, however, given that the program airs from 1 to five am in most markets and there is a core of regular listeners, I'm sure "Coast" has an audience that floats, meaning, not everone who listens, listens with a great degree of regularity. Thereby, subjects and topics can be revisited without irking a good portion of listeners.


<P ID="signature">______________
"What's That?" "French Horns!"

</P>
 
Re: Whitley Streiber... YES!

I agree, I'd say Whitley is #3 right behind Art and George. Despite his weak voice he carries on a good interview and is prone to interesting topics, avoiding political and fear-based discussions.<P ID="signature">______________
• K5ZN</P>
 
Re: Re: Whitley Streiber... YES! YES!

> I agree, I'd say Whitley is #3 right behind Art and George.
> Despite his weak voice he carries on a good interview and is
> prone to interesting topics, avoiding political and
> fear-based discussions.

Whitley does interview some political guests "on the fringe" such as Jim Marss (two s's) on his show. I classify Whitley as a left of center host since based on reading his writings on his web site, he seems to lean leftwards on environmental, science, and some social issues...
 
Re: Radio Experts as guests

> Maybe one of the radio xperts on this site can be a guest
> and we can hear all about the wonderful technical world of
> radio. They've already had discussions centering on
> Marconi.

Radio experts as guests - absolutely... Art has interviewed people like Wayne Green, inventor/ham radio/writer/etc. I haven't heard Wayne on in a long time and I hope he is still a guest. Anyone recall? Art has also interviewed a guest on the topic of broadband internet interference with shortwave and AM reception. Also, the guest on Vancouver Island who talks about cell tower radiation and chemtrails. The cell tower radiation is significant in my opinion...just bring a highly sensitive MW/SW (AM and shortwave) receiver within several yards of the safety fence around a tower and you're radio will go crazy.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by this Tom: on 08/31/05 06:28 AM.</FONT></P>
 
Re: Re: Whitley Streiber... YES! YES!

> > I agree, I'd say Whitley is #3 right behind Art and
> George.
> > Despite his weak voice he carries on a good interview and
> is
> > prone to interesting topics, avoiding political and
> > fear-based discussions.
>
> Whitley does interview some political guests "on the fringe"
> such as Jim Marss (two s's) on his show. I classify
> Whitley as a left of center host since based on reading his
> writings on his web site, he seems to lean leftwards on
> environmental, science, and some social issues...

At the same time, though, Art and George are left-of-center on a lot of environmental and science issues, although maybe not social, so it wouldn't be too much of an adjustment from what we're already listening to. I think he'd be a better fit than Punnet (sp?). The guy just isn't that interesting to me.<P ID="signature">______________
"Get educated. Read stuff on the web and believe all of it."
-- Phil Hendrie
http://theradioblog.blogspot.com</P>
 
Re: Re: Whitley Streiber... YES! YES!

> Art and George are left-of-center
> on a lot of environmental and science issues, although maybe
> not social,
George was on the extreme right on the Schiavo issue, to the point of axe-grinding. I think he got a bad reputation from that episode. Haven't heard him get so political ever since.<P ID="signature">______________
• K5ZN</P>
 
Re: Re: Whitley Streiber... YES! YES!

> George was on the extreme right on the Schiavo issue, to the
> point of axe-grinding. I think he got a bad reputation from
> that episode. Haven't heard him get so political ever since.

Just knowing the political leanings of his audience from listening to them call in, you're probably right. That probably hurt him quite a bit in the social topics arena. Although, I think the same thing probably would have happened if he had gone extreme left, because as I see it, the Coast to Coast audience is generally middle-of-the-road politically speaking, and that can prove pretty divisive on social topics. I think the whole point of being the host of Coast to Coast is to be the resident skeptic. Art's played that role many a time, whether or not he says "Let me just play Devil's advocate, here" beforehand. George has done so in the past as well. I think if he had done so with both sides of the Schiavo case, he would have been able to just sit back, take calls and let the listeners speak out about it. If he hadn't positioned himself, it would have been a whole lot better for him. Coast is supposed to be a topical forum for all ideas, not a soapbox for the host.

Post 897 dedicated to the first station at which I ever laid a finger on the controls: 89.7 WMCU, Miami!<P ID="signature">______________
"Get educated. Read stuff on the web and believe all of it."
-- Phil Hendrie
http://theradioblog.blogspot.com</P>
 
Re: Re: Whitley Streiber... YES! YES!

> > Art and George are left-of-center
> > on a lot of environmental and science issues, although
> maybe
> > not social,
> George was on the extreme right on the Schiavo issue, to the
> point of axe-grinding. I think he got a bad reputation from
> that episode. Haven't heard him get so political ever since.

The Terry Schiavo issue shouldn't be discussed by talk hosts. It is a personal matter for her family that is nobody's business. It is always unfortunate when so much time is designated for personal life and death issues surrounding the terminally ill.

As for the perspectives of the right and left on Terry Schiavo, these labels are meaningless, since what a family decides to do concerning whether or not to sustain life support of a relative has no relationship to the political platform. of either the Republicans or Democrats.
 
Re: Re: Whitley Streiber... YES! YES!

> The Terry Schiavo issue shouldn't be discussed by talk
> hosts. It is a personal matter for her family that is
> nobody's business. It is always unfortunate when so much
> time is designated for personal life and death issues
> surrounding the terminally ill.
>
> As for the perspectives of the right and left on Terry
> Schiavo, these labels are meaningless, since what a family
> decides to do concerning whether or not to sustain life
> support of a relative has no relationship to the political
> platform. of either the Republicans or Democrats.

I beg to differ. I think it's a highly political issue, because it brings to light the fact that there's a divide in this country, along both moral and political lines, and that we need to figure out what's right and what's wrong. There are some things (such as life-and-death issues like this one) that we cannot just sit back and agree to disagree on. Hell, the fact that we disagree on this simply proves my point. This is an argument that's not going to just go away with the Schiavo case; it will come up again in the future. The only reason it split us along party lines (for the most part... there were people from both sides of the aisle, you'll recall, that went against their party's stance) was because conservative Republicans saw it as a right-to-live issue and liberal Democrats saw it as a right-to-die issue. I won't go so far as to say here who's right and who's wrong (although I think that by reading other posts I've made on this board, you'll easily find where I stand on the issue), but I'll leave you with this thought: this issue hasn't been worked out yet, and until it is, political talk hosts on both sides are going to be talking about it. Whether you see that as right or wrong is up to you, but the political labels are most certainly not meaningless. Those labels are what will determine how the problem is eventually solved.

Post 900 dedicated to CHML, Hamilton, ON, which I can receive every night.<P ID="signature">______________
"Get educated. Read stuff on the web and believe all of it."
-- Phil Hendrie
http://theradioblog.blogspot.com</P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom