Talk:Coast to Coast AM

clear channel?

When the article talks about "clear channel", does it mean Clear Channel Communications? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, indeed that is the meaning for Clear Channel. Ap William (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

how do I get ahold of George Knapp myself 75.164.40.60 (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

MOS improvements

Did some cleanup of sections and redundancies. Since the article has been largely curated over the years by fans, it contains a lot of unselected and unverified WP:TRIVIA. Cutting down the "Guests" section to a reasonable number of examples would be a further improvement. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Coast to Coast Prediction Show

The article is not quite correct on allowing/not allowing callers to predict the President would be assassinated/die in office.

When Art Bell was the host, he did not allow it. He likely allowed it initially as he mentioned that he was contacted by the Secret Service over it.

When George Noory took over as the host, it seems he did not allow it when George W. Bush was President, but had no problem for several years with people predicting Obama would be assassinated. Towards the end of Obama's time in office, Noory reinstituted the ban.

174.6.140.177 (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead, etc.

Regarding recent edit comments, e.g. adding "most popular overnight show in the country" to lead, as The Atlantic also verifies this. Funny how this was omitted, I don't think it was intentionally left out. If anything, 10-15 year old program ratings/accolades should probably be presented in a more historical context rather than showcased in the lead. Also, we shouldn't be giving program directory info to the reader such as The program now airs seven nights a week from 1:00 a.m. – 5:00 a.m. Eastern Time Zone per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with omitting exact dates and times as relative trivia more suited to the infobox, but the lead was (and is still) incomplete and unbalanced. One of the primary reasons this program has an article is because it is popular. That's why newspapers, magazines, etc. have covered it over the decades. Per MOS:LEAD The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. I am rudimentarily familiar with the show but I had no idea until I did some cursory Googling that it has repeatedly been demonstrated to the most popular, or among the most popular, late night shows in the country. The lead should also mention reception from scientists and skeptics. And, call me skeptical of skeptics or critical of critics, but when mainstream articles in sources like The Atlantic or The New York Times are choicely mined for critical or negative commentary, and the big picture ignored or downplayed, a call to re-examine sources and assess WP:NPOV is in order. I realize this article previously suffered from over-coverage from a fan's point of view, and information may have been omitted as the pendulum swung towards the version today, but let's strive to ensure the balance of facts and opinions reflects their prominence in reliable sources, even older ones. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

So you feel that criticism from scientists and skeptics should be balanced by emphasis on popularity and ratings? This is going to be interesting. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I feel that a good article should neither minimize nor overemphasize achievements, and neither downplay nor overemphasize criticism. Analogy: If a scientist hates the most popular film in the country because the science is wrong, that doesn't mean we don't discuss the popularity, nor give their view disproportionate emphasis. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no one is saying popular success as documented by RS shouldn't be mentioned. Just that it's not required we give an equal 50/50 ratio of critique and accolade. A good example is The Game Changers. The scientific criticism is given more representation because of its prominence in RS. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I never mentioned a 50/50 ratio is needed to achieve balance. The Game Changers appears to exemplify my concerns as much as this one, if not more so. The synopsis has been nearly entirely gutted (a disservice to readers curious to what the film is about), it fails to even mention the director in prose, and encyclopedic facts like "became iTunes' best-selling documentary ever within a week of landing on the platform" from cited references are curiously absent. Negative reception is then extolled in paragraphs full of verbatim quotes, from mainstream magazines to the journal of the Hungarian Dietetic Association, as if editors have bent over backwards and scraped the bowels of Web of Science to find critical commentary, and add it to the pile. NPOV doesn't mean that everything written must be included, but that views should be summarized and presented based on their prominence (how often are Hungarian dietary journals cited in film articles?) It's fine to include "has been criticized" as CNN does, and include noteworthy criticism. But "has been criticized" is not carte blanche to turn an encyclopedia article into a laundry list of every complaint. Just as Wikipedians who are fans of a subject can sometimes write too positively, editors who are fans of critics, or dismissive of the subject, can be overzealous and heavy-handed with their approach. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

New Contributor

This is Kevin Randle. Recently, on the Fri. Night shows, at its start, he reports on all manner of UFO related matters. 216.247.72.142 (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

You mean Kevin D. Randle. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC).

Sure do. My sig went into the toilet. 216.247.72.142 (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)