Let the guest the introduce the topic and talk as much as possible!
True as a rule?
Sure. Knapp practices this, and it's a good thing.
But I give Ian a pass, because--having listened to him for so long--it seems to me he is most prone to doing this when he's so excited about the stuff he's read about he is literally incapable of putting the brakes on his mouth. So I would rather have a host that talks too much out of enthusiasm than a) a dullard like Snoory who can't think of a single thing to say if it's not on his stupid 3X5 cards or even b) a guy like Wells who seems to be trying but leaves way too much dead air for my tastes.
Maybe that's all personal preference too. If so, well, then that's all just my opinion.
I just listened to part of an old show of Ian's last night, an hour of open lines and the first hour of an interview on the dumbing down of the "under 30" generation due to technology. I really couldn't reconcile all the criticisms I've heard here (largely from PB) with the Ian I was hearing.
He had a call in Open Lines from a woman whose cousin had committed suicide, and he was just absolutely pitch perfect in how he handled dealing with her questions about family dynamics and the aftermath of suicide, the perfect pastoral counselor all in less than three minutes without making the caller feel as if she had been short-shrifted (could not imagine Noory taking that call).
Listened to him deftly deal with a multi-repeat caller who wanted (for the 107th time) to read him Bible verses supporting the use of marijuana ("Let me cut to the chase: is this about pot again? I have no problem with you smoking pot. We've talked about this before any number of times. Have at it, and good for you.")
Listened to him deal effectively with a not particularly educated or articulate caller reporting a bigfoot sighting from decades before; Ian did a wonderful job of reassuring the caller that others putting him down for what he believed he had seen should not be his concern, only his own understanding of what he saw, told and re-told without embellishment, even "bonding" with the caller by saying he (Ian) had seen a UFO at one point, taken it through all official channels, never had it identified, and understood the caller's position that he *knew* what he had seen. (Noory would have said something stupid like, "But was it a shadow person? Was it a demon?")
The first hour of the interview--even better. But I'll stop there. I think folks who criticize Ian glom on to one or two moments where Ian does something not so great--and often forget the many, many things he does in a four-hour program that are spot on, starting with actually PREPARING FOR EACH SHOW.
Gosh, I get tired of defending the man, but damn he's so much better than most of what we get.
Poll