Talk:Coast to Coast AM

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

It might be good to note that Coast to Coast acts "neutral," presenting all viewpoints as being on equal footing. They do give time to guests like the Bad Astronomer, for example, allowing the dissemination of facts and a refutation of the pseudoscientific conclusions of other guests and callers.

Whether this is in fact neutral or not (totally isn't) is of course conveniently ignored. ~ 03:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Art Bell[edit]

Might want to note that even Art Bell wants nothing to do with C2C now because it is full of neocons. --Alakazam (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


I don't see how this article is either educational, and/or informational in any way. It seems more like a page attacking those who don't agree with certain ideals. Here's an example of the ridiculous tone this page takes: 'Many stations that carry Coast to Coast also carry other Premiere Radio shows, including Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity, hosts also not known for firm grips on reality.' Here's another: 'as opposed to many regular guests who just make stuff up.' Can this page please be reformatted to omit these arrogant, ad hominem attacks? Thanks (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Agreed, but man, some of those guests Bell had on were really out there. Anything claiming "rational" in its site title is going to attract progs, lefties, and atheists and the relative socialist trash that comes with these groups. Don't think I'm hating, RW is fun to read; but it's the same problem alt-right blogs and news sites have with attracting anti-semitism and Jewish conspiracy peddling types.

What kinda nav do you give this guy?[edit]

Is media best? Because in a sense, that seems wrong. Coast to Coast AM is Ancient Aliens-level crank, and as such, it qualifies for like 6 navs. I'm a stumped, guys. Thoughts? We got room for 2 navs in total, at any rate... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Paranormal and pseudoscience. Calling it media is too flattering. Leuders (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Paranormal and/or Conspiracy. Petey Plane (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
See guys? It's hard, hah. He keeps his eggs spread out among so many of our damn baskets. What seems clear is that the media nav is much too dignifying. And he doesn't seem political enough for pundits nav to apply. That leaves the woo — and that's where he qualifies for many, if not most, of our navs. Impressive, in a way... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)