It's a free world. People are entitled to their personal views and sentiments. Welcome to the world.
I don't appreciate this condescending attitude, "welcoming" me to a world you know I'm very much a part of. I never suggested censoring you. I'm defending Noory against the hyperbole from many posters. How can you start your rebuttal with a statement upholding the right of personal views, when other replies heap personal insults on me for daring to like Noory? For example, Jasmine opines:
And quite frankly, anyone who claims to be a bona fide fan of Noory is truly not dealing with a full deck, and is situated on the lower rung of the human food chain.
Why not tell Jasmine everyone is entitled to their own opinion?
I'll reply to the arguments that Noory has significantly decreased C2C's educational value from the Art Bell days and that Noory sounds unintelligent and is a poor interviewer.
First, Oversoul and Jasmine mentioned they listened to C2C for its educational value. I have also learned a lot from some programs such as those with Shermer, Nickell, or Kaku. But when I tune in, I expect to take things with many grains of salt, and simply laugh off a lot of stuff. I think the very nature of C2C as a forum for all things weird puts it behind the eight ball for me in terms of educational value. My epistemology is to trust traditional authorities such as academics over lone wolf authors/researchers which comprise most of the C2C lineup. But I understand many people strongly distrust traditional authorities, and not without reason.
Even if you tune in for good information and put your trust in the guests, there is still much to like in Noory's programs. Since he gives guests a lot of leeway, a good guest can speak their mind and go where he/she wants. Whether it's a skeptic, bigfoot researcher, medical quackery promoter, ancient mysteries researcher, astral projection guru, the-times-are-bad-and-getting-worse prophet, numerologist, astrologer, or conspiracy theorist, at the end the night you will know that guest's thoughts. Has any guest ever ended a three hour interview feeling they didn't get enough time to talk? With Ian Punnet, that's a real problem because he talks too much and gives too little time to the guest. It seems like we all agree that, for better or worse, Noory gives a lot of time to guests.
Noory has a huge range of guests on, for better or worse. On the worse end is all the medical quackery proponents and financial doomsdayers who might very well cause real harm. On the better end is all the skeptics, scientists, and writers who don't fit the audience of a paranormal-themed program and probably engender a lot of hate fast-blasts to C2C. I'm guessing Shermer's atheism and skepticism pissed of a ton of listeners, but Noory has had him on multiple times. Noory hosted two debates with Shermer: one with Roswell promoter Stanton Friedman and another with three parapsychologists, one after another.
I didn't intend to bring up some negatives of Art Bell's hosting days because, as I said before, he was skilled, entertaining, and innovative in the radio field. He hosted some legendary programs that I still listen to. I bring up some negatives now only to shrink the purported gap in talent between Bell and Noory.
UnscreenedCaller accused Noory of being dangerous for having on some proponents of medical quackery. I'm sympathetic to this argument because I know the great harm inflicted by pursuing medical quackery and related scams. One example if Noory's dual interviews with Andrew Wakesfield, the lead author of the infamous MMR vaccines-cause-autism report. However, because of C2C's reputation as a paranormal-themed show denies the credibility to guests that would be granted if Wakesfield appeared at length and in a favorable light on NBC or CBS. If someone is predisposed to believe Wakesfield, then they are going to find out about his views one or another, and appearing on C2C is hardly a ringing endorsement.
Art Bell interviewed plenty of pseudo-scientists pushing medical quackery. He interviewed Lorraine Day (alternative cancer treatment), Wayne Green (AIDS denialist), and Ronald Klatz (anti-aging quackery). And what about all the anti-government conspiracy theorists which encouraged the growth of anti-government militias in the 1990s and contributed to an atmosphere of government-hating paranoia? The stand-off at Ruby Ridge, Branch Dividian Siege, and Oklahoma City bombing all had anti-government paranoia at their roots, paranoia fanned by Bell and his guests.
In conclusion, the variety of guests Noory brings on, and the freedom he gives them to talk, ensures C2C retains a lot of educational content for those who looking for education on a paranormal-themed radio show. If your criteria of a poor host is that they host "dangerous" guests, then Bell is as guilty as Noory.
Second, the number one criticism of Noory seems to be that he sounds unintelligent and asks poor questions. As I said in my first post, Noory can be quirky and random sometimes, but it's light-hearted as he tries to inject some humor into the conversation.
Regarding his interview skills, they're inferior to Bell but not to the extent that it prevents enjoyment. I've recorded many entertaining shows hosted by Noory. Examples include the interviews with Robert Bruce (astral projection), Michael Shermer and Joe Nickell (skeptics), Neil Arnold (A-Z of Zooform), Gregory Little (Edgar Cayce, Atlantis, Bahamas), Loren Coleman (cryptids), Lionel Fanthorpe (British storyteller), and John DeSalvo (pyramids).
A common criticism is he mispronounces words. I listen a lot and don't recall an unusual amount of mispronounced words. One that comes to mind was in his interview with Joe Nickell when he called the Shroud of Turin the Shroud of
Urine, but quickly corrected himself. If he is mispronouncing words, it's not distracting me.
Poll