george does not have the depth for some of the better guests. For example, Art interviewing Michio Kaku is far more interesting than George doing so.

Ian is my favorite. He's funny, sharp, prepared, and incisive, and his areas of interest almost directly mirror my own. I've been listening to c2c for probably 15 years now, and his format is, IMO, the highest evolution of the concept thus far. I would go so far as to say that he is the only host i even enjoy listening to these days.

i LOATHE george noory. i agree that he's very pandering to the guests, as well as goofy callers. art bell's great strength was the balance that he struck between giving people a chance and giving them enough rope to hang themselves, and he wouldnt let them waste any more of his or the audiences time once they did. have you ever noticed that its always the spaciest, least compelling callers who wax on and on about how much they love george and how nice he is and how he's got such a gentle soul? maybe thats because he gives them 10 minutes of fame to tell some ridiculous made-up bullshit to the whole country, where art would have cut them off in under a minute.

apart from being uncontroversial (on a show that focuses more or less exclusively on controversy) and generally unsophisticated, my MAJOR complaint with noory is his epic duplicity. i cant count the times he's made some comment like "I *really* believe that might definitely be true, I think." whAt? god, that makes me grit my teeth.

on the rare occasions that art hosts these days (and nobody dies or get abducted by aliens when he's scheduled) i find that im just as rarely interested in the topics he chooses. the ghost to coast and new years predictions call-in shows are among my least favorite anyway. ever since art took a stand against 9-11 truth, i havent had much respect for him as a member of the fringe interest community.