Ian Punnett

[Oversoul]

Ian's undergrad degree is in Rhetoric.  In other words, he's been trained to use the language to his advantage to win debates, inflate the value of his points and devalue yours.  If you listen for them, you'll hear him use these techniques with guests and callers almost constantly.

'I totally get that' is simply a method used to dismiss what the guest is saying and move on to the points he wants to emphasize.

Is that Punnett expression similar to Noory's "That's true, very true." remark everytime he wants to move on to another point?

[Lovely Bones]

Ian's undergrad degree is in Rhetoric.  In other words, he's been trained to use the language to his advantage to win debates, inflate the value of his points and devalue yours.

There's nothing inherently wrong with rhetoric.  The word has taken on a negative connotation because it's been associated so often with things like "political rhetoric," where rhetoric is all about "taking advantage," "inflating value," "devaluing the opposition," etc.  But true rhetoric is a much fairer, much less negative enterprise, and I happen to think you're too quick to brush Ian's approach with the negative connotation of rhetoric. 

He has always said he wants his time with a guest to be a conversation.  That's a distinctly different style than Knapp, coming from an investigative journalism background.  Knapp does what journalists do--asks questions and stays in the background, out of the way, while the guest expounds.  Ian's style seems more or less a dialectic. 

Personally, I don't find one style superior to the other, merely different, and enjoy both these hosts for what they do and how they do it.  But that's just me. 

[Lovely Bones]

Is that Punnett expression similar to Noory's "That's true, very true." remark everytime he wants to move on to another point?

I would say no, the difference being this: when Ian says, "I totally get that," chances are good he's a) read the guest's book/other material; b) listened to whatever the guest has just said; and c) actually thought about what the guest has just said.

When Noory says, "Well that's true," he has no concept of what the guest has just said because he was busy playing Angry Birds, wasn't listening to the guest, and wouldn't care even if he had been listening.

IOW, for Noory, almost everything that comes out of his mouth is mere meaningless filler. 

[thefamilyghost]

When Noory says, "Well that's true," he has no concept of what the guest has just said because he was busy playing Angry Birds, wasn't listening to the guest, and wouldn't care even if he had been listening.

[texaskdog]

C2C definitely declined with Ian cutting back.  Remember the David Letterman interviews where they made the fake cut ins?  That's how I picture Noory, or just staring at the internet while his guest talks.

[Ben Shockley]

There's nothing inherently wrong with rhetoric...  I happen to think [Paper*Boy is] too quick to brush Ian's approach with the negative connotation of rhetoric.

I think P*B was using the term appropriately.  Punnett is the Debate Team nerd who loves to hear himself speak, and I'm sure he is conscious of and self-assured in that Rhetoric degree as he goes to each caller.

[Ian] has always said he wants his time with a guest to be a conversation...  Ian's style seems more or less a dialectic.

Unless you're being self-contradictory, you must be suggesting that Punnett wants something "new" to arise from his "conversations."   Theoretically possible, but...
The implication of a dialectic is that one side will destroy the other, or that there will be mutual destruction in creation of a synthesis, which I've never really heard happen in any talk radio, including Punnett's.


I'm another one who thinks his "I totally get it" line means "shut up with your drivel from your book which isn't some goofy shit about dogs; let me tell the rubes what's really important."

[EnterDragon]

I would say no, the difference being this: when Ian says, "I totally get that," chances are good he's a) read the guest's book/other material; b) listened to whatever the guest has just said; and c) actually thought about what the guest has just said.

When Noory says, "Well that's true," he has no concept of what the guest has just said because he was busy playing Angry Birds, wasn't listening to the guest, and wouldn't care even if he had been listening.

IOW, for Noory, almost everything that comes out of his mouth is mere meaningless filler.

That's true sometimes, but I could tell when George is bored and when he's personally into a topic and puts effort into his interviews.

[blackshap9]

That's true sometimes, but I could tell when George is bored and when he's personally into a topic and puts effort into his interviews.

I totally get what your saying..hehehe, kidding 

Is George just bored? Perhaps he is sometimes. There are other times when the conversation just goes over his head. Like when Kaku is on or any other scientist. George can go up to high school level, maybe community college dropout level. Art Ian and Knapp can actually lead the conversations. Snorry and Smells can't even spell physics, never mind understanding what the word means.

[EnterDragon]

Yeah, that's why some callers tell him to take a day off now and then. Many talk show hosts take off once in a short while, but Noory never does! But As ditzy as he is, Noory is definitely smarter then Wells. And although he's nowhere near as articulate as Knapp is or Punnet, Noory knows more about the paranormal than they do. With the exception of Knapp's UFO knowledge.

[blackshap9]

Good point. Snorry does have a keen interest in the paranormal, it seems to be his comfort zone. But is Snorry smarter than Ian? A question for the ages. I lean towards Ian.

Ian these days does seem to be rambling a little too often these days. I preferred him when he had his own show. He was more aggressive back then.

[b_dubb]

...  IP all too frequently

said another way ... I pee all too frequently

They have a pill for that

[Lovely Bones]

I think P*B was using the term appropriately.  Punnett is the Debate Team nerd who loves to hear himself speak, and I'm sure he is conscious of and self-assured in that Rhetoric degree as he goes to each caller.
Unless you're being self-contradictory, you must be suggesting that Punnett wants something "new" to arise from his "conversations."   Theoretically possible, but...
The implication of a dialectic is that one side will destroy the other, or that there will be mutual destruction in creation of a synthesis, which I've never really heard happen in any talk radio, including Punnett's.


I'm another one who thinks his "I totally get it" line means "shut up with your drivel from your book which isn't some goofy shit about dogs; let me tell the rubes what's really important."

Ben--I'm thinking of "dialectic" in the Greek sense of refutation (as in an integral part of any argument or "conversation" about an issue), and I'm thinking of rhetoric as shaping a discussion to meet the needs of a particular audience, controlling the response of that audience as one goes.  In those circumstances, refutation is not a nasty business, and rhetoric is not a bag of tricks to deceive an audience. 

Obviously, you see things differently, and I am not going to bother to argue with you. 

[PB the Deplorable]

For me it was more like why does Ian act like a jerk to callers so often, and even to guests on occasion.  I noticed he sure is good at manipulating the language, especially when the caller is just calling in to make a point or ask a question and isn't prepared for verbal battle.  Then one day I see on Wiki that Ian's undergrad degree is in Rhetoric.  That's when it clicked.  So I didn't notice his undergrad degree first, then make up something negative around it.

Interestingly, not long after I first posted about it, the Rhetoric degree detail disappeared from his wikipedia page.  I wonder who made that edit and why.

[blackshap9]

For me it was more like why does Ian act like a jerk to callers so often, and even to guests on occasion.  I noticed he sure is good at manipulating the language, especially when the caller is just calling in to make a point or ask a question and isn't prepared for verbal battle.  Then one day I see on Wiki that Ian's undergrad degree is in Rhetoric.  That's when it clicked.  So I didn't notice his undergrad degree first, then make up something negative around it.

Interestingly, not long after I first posted about it, the Rhetoric degree detail disappeared from his wikipedia page.  I wonder who made that edit and why.

Tiptoeing through the tulips; I'll post this and let people make up their own minds.

Rhetoric:  A program that focuses on the scientific, humanistic, and critical study of human communication in a variety of formats, media, and contexts. Includes instruction in the theory and practice of interpersonal, group, organizational, professional, and intercultural communication; speaking and listening; verbal and nonverbal interaction; rhetorical theory and criticism; performance studies; argumentation and persuasion; technologically mediated communication; popular culture; and various contextual applications.

[CoastCanuck]

I usually skip Ian's shows (he's not my cup of tea).  But, I listened to his recent show about the Wrecking Crew and also last Sunday's 2 hours on the Titanic.  I'll give him credit for doing a good job with these 2 interviews. 
This past Sunday when he started his show, it only took 12 seconds for him to start talking about following him on Twitter again.  And Twitter came up several times during the show.  Annoying in my books.

[preston]

I usually skip Ian's shows (he's not my cup of tea).  But, I listened to his recent show about the Wrecking Crew and also last Sunday's 2 hours on the Titanic.  I'll give him credit for doing a good job with these 2 interviews. 
This past Sunday when he started his show, it only took 12 seconds for him to start talking about following him on Twitter again.  And Twitter came up several times during the show.  Annoying in my books.

Back before Twitter when he did the same with his blog.We used to do the drinking
game whenever he mentioned it.Got pretty drunk by the end of the show.

[Oversoul]

Ian's undergrad degree is in Rhetoric.  In other words, he's been trained to use the language to his advantage to win debates, inflate the value of his points and devalue yours.  If you listen for them, you'll hear him use these techniques with guests and callers almost constantly.

I so totally agree with your observation here.  It sounds disgusting when Punnett makes the show his little collegiate debating club.  It's at the worst when he starts injecting his personal religious or moral views (I suppose he can't control the religious ministerial side of him.) and imposes them upon the guest or caller.  The host should not be debating his guests or callers in an informative show, which C2C is supposed to be, unless he is carrying out a hidden agenda in the show as in the case of political shows or many Christian fundamentalist shows.   

[Scully]

I just gotta add my 2 cents here about Ian's obsession with Twitter.  It annoys the heck out of me that he mentions it over and over each time he's on.  To me, it has the feel that he's speaking only to his own personal little group of suckups. 

On the positive side, I do think Ian should be given an award for being the most idiosyncratic individual on the planet. :

[blackshap9]

It annoys the heck out of me that he mentions it over and over each time he's on. 

Well since he is on only once a month, hopefully he will coincide with your other monthly friend. 

[Scully]

Well since he is on only once a month, hopefully he will coincide with your other monthly friend. 

Cute.  Really, really cute. 

[blackshap9]

Cute.  Really, really cute. 

I have my moments... few and far between. 

[Lovely Bones]

The host should not be debating his guests or callers in an informative show, which C2C is supposed to be [snip]

Would you rather have Snoory, then, who lets guests say anything, without challenge?  Seems as if one of the big complaints about Georgie is that he does just that, lets guests present views that go unchallenged, things like baking soda curing cancer and psychics/remote viewers predicting/viewing all sorts of crap.  Then we all (rightfully so) wind up ranting about how Snoory does nothing to challenge these guests. 

[stevesh]

Would you rather have Snoory, then, who lets guests say anything, without challenge? 

No, there's plenty of room between accepting any nonsense as Noory does, and arguing with guests for the sake of doing so. I think Punnett is a lot closer to the ideal attitude than Noory, and just ignore him when he occasionally crosses the line.

I'm in full agreement about the Twitter thing, though. Twitter is the narcissist's wet dream, and Punnett is nothing if not self-absorbed.

[Lovely Bones]

I think Punnett is a lot closer to the ideal attitude than Noory, and just ignore him when he occasionally crosses the line.

There's not a single "ideal" host among all those we've had for Coast, and that includes our beloved Art, whom we could also criticize for this and that if we want to look at ideal definitions.  Agree that Ian comes closer to ideal than Noory (I'm not sure "closer than Noory" is any ringing endorsement), but I'll still defend Ian's choices as merely one style of hosting over the more neutral approach that, say, Knapp uses.

Meanwhile, there are folks on the Noory thread angry (as they should be) that once accepted on air, the pedophile "Jay" got no challenges from Noory, just loving, warm acceptance.  I'd rather have had Ian take that guy on than to hear George licking his ass over the air waves.  But that's just my opinion. 

[Eddie Coyle]

 
         At it's most basic: Ian is an occasionally contentious nerd.
                                       George is an oblivious goon.

            For a radio host, the former is superior to the latter. Say what you will about Ian, at least he's engaged in the topic(perhaps too much at times). Noory has the detachment of an automaton. He doesn't contest things, because that would mean listening,thinking and caring, a triumvirate he eschews.

            That said..Ian's Twitter nonsense is gheyer by the minute.

[blackshap9]

          That said..Ian's Twitter nonsense is gheyer by the minute.

Ian's on Twitter? Really? I didn't know that.

[PB the Deplorable]

Good to see Ian is taking it easy, getting some exercise.

[fabucat]

I used to disparage Ian, because of his holiness and his allergy to the paranormal, but he and Knapp are the best.  Last Sunday, Punnett was magnificent.  This was quality talk radio.

[Nebraska888]

I used to disparage Ian, because of his holiness and his allergy to the paranormal, but he and Knapp are the best.  Last Sunday, Punnett was magnificent.  This was quality talk radio.

YOU ARE 100% CORRECT!  I ENJOY IAN AND KNAPP!  THEY ARE THE BEST HOSTS! 

[Sardondi]

While Ian is far, far superior to Simple George Noory, and I would happily listen to him if he replaced GN (although Knapp would be my first pick), I was always irritated by IP's repeated interruptions of his guests with long discourses, and his pathetic eagerness to show that he was smart. Dude, I want to hear them talk, not you! IP was the kid in grade school who sat on the front row and who by the third day of the school year the teacher had quit calling on because he squirmed in his seat holding his hand up to answer every question.

Still, I'd walk on nails if I could just hear IP host the show instead of that semi-trained monkey, George Noory.