++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++
Your wish to censor Alex Jones is implicit in the post, your
"regret" that he is appearing on a show with such a large listening
audience reveals that. Your supposition that it is George Norry's
responsibility to "expose" Jones indicates a lack of understanding
regarding the genre of the show, it's not CNN's Crossfire or NBC's
Hardball. Also, the audience can call in and engage Jones directly
if
they so desire.
If you were intellectually honest you would admit that you would
relish the opportunity to censor Alex Jones. Your assumption that
the
listeners aren't able to determine the validity of what Jones says,
what is true or not true, also betrays an arrogance all too common
amongst people such as yourself.
Mack

Let's see if I'm too "arrogant" to follow your line of reasoning.
After admitting that I listen to Jones on SW, I express concern
(regret, if you want) that Jones is getting three hours on Coast to
Coast because I question Noorey's ability to appropriately question
Jones on some of his political fantasies.

This, in your mind, equates to advocating censoring Jones, which I did
not. When asked directly where I advocating censoring him, you say
it's "implied." In other words, I didn't say it, but we'll pretend
that wishing Jones would appear in a different forum with a better
interviewer equates to calling for censorship (i.e., taking him off
the air). Having put words in my mouth, and trying to pass that off
as "implied," you now suggest that *I'm* intellectually dishonest and
jump back on the censorship horse. So let's resolve that once and
for all--I'd like nothing better than to see Jones get as much
personal coverage as possible by seasoned interviewers who don't have
Noorey's penchant for tossing softballs. Noorey is a decent guy with
a good show within it's realm, but wouldn't it be great to hear Jones
explaining the "Secrets of the Bohemian Grove" to Mike Wallace?

It also strikes me as rather strange that you consider it "arrogant"
to desire that Jones be interviewed by someone with sufficient
knowledge of politics to put his "ideas" to the test, rather than
someone whose idea of a credible source is Richard C. Hoagland.
Still, you don't have to be arrogant to recognize that for anyone who
regards Jones as source of wisdom on current events, an informed,
politically astute interviewer probably is the last thing you'd want.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Okay so rather than keeping Jone's off the air you want him on as
much as possible with "seasoned interviewers." I think you'd be
surprised at how well Alex does in that setting. I've heard him
interviewed on Denver's KOA radio station by Rick Barber (one of the
best unknown radio interviwers in the business) and Alex was
outstanding. He was scheduled to do one hour and the host kept asking
him to stay for another hour and another. He ended up doing four hours
and effectively backing all his assertions with mainstream media
sources. Really quite an impressive performance by Jones.
As for Mike Wallace, yes I'm sure you would love to see that, as
would every other foe of Jone's. Wallace and 60 Minutes tape anywhere
from 3-6 hours of interview with their victim and then edit it down to
fit a 15 minute segment. Cutting and splicing to make their target
look like a complete fool and them like geniuses. The oldest trick in
the book and the reason 60 minutes won't do live interviews.
And this mercifully brings to a close this thread, for me anyway.
Best wishes.
Mack