Written one week before Art's 'latest' retirement was announced:
The 'New' Art Bell?
 I must make a confession: I have a "guilty pleasure" to confide in you, gentle reader, privately: listening to Art Bell. I can't just admit this to any old amateur astronomer I might know, for it would surely result in my being ostracized. Most amateur astronomers around here hate Art Bell, if they admit to knowing at all who he might be (a couple of them have denied it, unconvincingly.) For, to the "strict constructionist rationalist type", Art Bell is regarded as 'the enemy of science', as one of them claimed. But... is this really so?
Art's image problem with the amateur scientific community dates back to the controversy surrounding the so-called, alleged "Saturn-like object" supposedly orbiting the comet Hale-Bopp. I have discussed my own involvement in debunking this controversy here, and I went on the public record with a strong denunciation of the specious claims, printed in the official authorized Hale-Bopp website of Russell Sipe (the article that I wrote has a small mistake that I realized immediately; despite sending Russell a couple of emails about correcting it, he never has done so. Can you see what I said that is incorrect? If so, you win a free copy of "Eyepiece" -- just download it here!) I remember vividly at the time of the comet -- which I watched, night after night, with my 8" telescope at the site I use in the Santa Cruz mountains -- seeing no "companion" but being outraged by the nonsense broadcast on Art's show by the likes of the late Chuck Shramek, and a deceitful 'professor' at a southern university, who claimed to have 'photographs' -- which were immediately debunked as faked modifications by the real astronomer, Dr. David Tholen, who had originally taken the CCD images using a telescope in Hawaii. Art became 'caught up' in the claims and counter-claims and -- one has to admit -- hyped them more than a little bit, like a good broadcaster who wants to stir up listener involvement and sensationalism.
The aftermath of the "Heaven's Gate" cult tragedy caused a certain element of the public to turn against Art Bell: primarily ordinary "civilian" listeners who had a strong amateur interest in science, and were shocked and dismayed. But, what about PROFESSIONAL scientists? I knew many, including some at Lick Observatory and NASA-Ames. They were only vaguely aware of the issue, as occasionally some had needed to address a telephonic inquiry from the public or press. But, all of the ones I spoke to just dismissed the whole business as beneath their contempt, of no social consequence whatsoever, or simply downright amusing (see this Lick Observatory webcam joke page for an example of their light-hearted attitude.) No one was indignant, or seemed to care the slightest bit. The media, they would explain, are so full of nonsense about science that this was no worse than anything else they'd experienced.
But I ('merely' an amateur scientist) got downright riled up with the then-director of Lick Observatory and his management staff. Someone had posted on the Coast To Coast AM website that he had called the Observatory on Mt. Hamilton and spoke to "Wendy, the person in charge" who told him that the Observatory had confirmed the existence of the alleged alien spacecraft orbiting the comet. I faxed the supervisor at Mt. Hamilton, and told him about it -- because this person "Wendy" was in fact HIS lady friend, who was merely the manager of the gift shop, who answered the public telephone line. I also informed the office of the Director in Santa Cruz, and offered to help the Observatory deal with the issue, as I myself was a broadcaster and knew how to interface with Art's network officials. I wanted the Observatory to explain, and request that this nonsensical claim be taken off the Art Bell website. I was told by the Director's assistant that they'd get back to me; nothing happened. I called a week later, and was informed that 'after consideration, the matter is believed to be so inconsequential that the Observatory doesn't want to get into it.' Thus the statement stayed there -- for years -- with no official rebuttal from the appropriate, knowledgeable parties. This shows you the degree of isolation of the academic community from the hoi polloi and their little concerns!
Well, as you can understand, I was quite perturbed by the way the Bell show, and his website, dealt with the spurious comet claims, but nothing came of what little efforts I made to air the truth! I was ready to quit listening to Art, forever: which pained me, since I had sometimes enjoyed his show, late at night while observing with my telescope, as far back as the days when it was a local program on KDWN from Las Vegas.
But, my friend Don Machholz persuaded me to "be patient with Art", for Don had earlier advertised his brochure on finding and viewing Comet Hale-Bopp on Art's website, and had been in contact with him. Art was, Don explained, interested in astronomy; in fact, he was willing (I believe it was Don's suggestion in fact) to put on Dr. Alan Hale, co-discoverer of the comet, to give the true scientific perspective. And so it came to pass, with Art -- perhaps sounding a bit uncomfortable at first -- doing a very good and informative interview with Hale. Things slowly turned around... and I continued to listen. (Perhaps I still tended to shut off "Coast to Coast AM" when topics like witches, "shadow people", and native American shamanism were bandied about, but a program with Ed Dames, the 'remote viewing' guru, or Richard C. Hoagland -- who needs no explanation to any reader perusing this article! -- were quite amusing to me.)
But the amateur scientific/rationalist community had no such tolerance for Art Bell. CSICOP (the Committee for the Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, a group that had Carl Sagan as one of its original mentors) gave Art the Snuffed Candle Award for "for encouraging credulity, presenting pseudoscience as genuine, and contributing to the public's lack of understanding of the methods of scientific inquiry." Among the stern reproaches levied, it was said that "Bell's show cultivates conspiracy theories, a distrust of scientists, a misunderstanding of science, and belief in suspect, and often even demonstrably wrong ideas, concerning everything from astronomy to zoology"; it was implied that the program did actual harm to the public interest, excluding rational "correct" voices of truth. The famous television personality Steve Allen was on the dias at the CSICOP meeting, prominently involved in the organization's public pronouncements against Art.
But, in recent years I've had my own problems with Steve Allen. Much beloved by the rationalist community -- if only (I think) because they could find so few supporters from the show-biz world -- the late Steve Allen to me had seemed for many years to be an embarrassment. He and his grotesque, loud-mouthed, big-haired actress wife did a 'fake historical interview show' on PBS, talking to actors dressed up as Karl Marx, Socrates, and Galileo. But Allen's scripts were high school English class reject material (and how indeed could anybody summon up enough of the "willing suspension of disbelief" to endure that gross woman's impersonation of Cleopatra?) Steve Allen's so-called 'piano playing' and 'composing' -- and especially his embarrassing wobbly bleating, claimed to be 'singing' -- made me run for the channel changer. He wrote many books: all the ones I read were superficial and juvenile. His comedy routines -- and use of stupid stock phrases such as the nonsensical "schmock-schmock" -- make David Letterman seem positively Bertrand-Russellesque.
So, by setting up Steve Allen as the "celebrity against Art Bell", I felt that CSICOP was choosing an especially weak role-model. And, as I continued to listen to Art, I gradually became aware that a miraculous transformation was occurring...
The crackpots and cranks that were typical show guests became gradually mingled with REAL SCIENTISTS AND EXPERTS! I started hearing astrophysicists and cosmologists, biologists, computer science and communications futurists. Art also introduced psychologists, economists, and sociologists into the mix: real academics and professionals in their respective fields, peer-reviewed authorities. It was marvelous! But, sadly, this evolution has not impressed the folks at CSICOP. A world-famed magician and debunker -- hint: he has a Foundation -- was offered interview opportunities repeatedly by Coast to Coast AM, but always refused. The worthy gentleman (who has only a high school education but pontificates like a sage, believing apparently that the most complex issues of modern science may be solved merely by applying the most limited, rudimentary Aristotelian logic) told me that he considered Art Bell "a whore". But, as a broadcaster who produced in my time thousands of radio and television commercials -- and who even sold telescopes for a living for a while -- I have to reply, 'so are we all'.
Furthermore, I discovered, while listening to Art and his ham radio friends "ragchew" night after night on the 75 meter ham band, that his off-air personality is a bit more complex than you'd suspect from his commercial show. He actually sounded to me to be a bit of a skeptic! Compared to a few of his ham-buddies, Art is the level-headed guy: reasonable, calm, reassuring, and -- yes -- rational! In fact, I've heard him admit that many of his guests are "out there" and that he does not for a moment BELIEVE any of what they say -- but that he feels that his program is a medium for the discussion of everything, from every perspective, and that the guests he has can make their best case. He's "tolerant"; to use another term, he's in fact "liberal" (accepting other points of view with aplomb.)
A stand-by on "Coast to Coast AM" has been the theoretical physicist, Dr. Michiu Kaku. He and Art seem to share a genuine friendship and rapport; where else in broadcasting can you hear a three-hour interview about string theory? And the very rationalist, sober scientist, and UFO-debunker Dr. Seth Shostak, senior scientist of the SETI Institute, has been on so frequently that one imagines that he and Art have become genuinely personal friends. Seth's forbearance of some of the occasionally risible questions from the audience is a tonic to a rationalist listener like me; and Art knows how to play off the disparate passions of the far-out crowd against the sobriety and conservatism of the scientific guests he interviews.
During the last few years, I have heard the following topics discussed by Art, usually on a level that has far greater depth and specificity than the coverage by any other broadast media: cosmology, string theory, relativity, dark matter, biology, evolution, medicine, scientific crime scene investigation, psychology, planetary and comet science, astrophysics, quantum mechanics -- a special fascination of Art's -- and statistics. Just in the last year, the guests and topics he's discussed have included a specialist on mathematical modeling; solar physics; black holes and parallel universe theory; human consciousness investigations; the physics of light and electromagnetic radiation; space and military technology; noise and signal processing; multiverse models, wormholes, and the Big Bang; SETI research by the orthodox scientific community; the Hubble constant, and rate of expansion of the universe; greenhouse climatic extinctions; chemistry and energy; meteorology and climate change; and robotics. Unlike a two-minute "featurette" interview/puff-piece that might air on a PBS morning show, Art's interviews are in-depth, and his subjects are often academics at major universities and scientific organizations; peer-reviewed authors; and technical experts of world renown.
What's even more amazing is Art's ability to keep up with his subject's fields of expertise. His questions are apropos, intelligent, and rapid-fire, revealing his amazing mental agility and his ability to LISTEN and think on-his-feet. The culmination of this phenomenon, for me, has been the program I listened to, spell-bound, for three hours last night, Sunday-Monday 24/25 June 2007. Art interviewed Dr. Richard Massey of the California Institute of Technology, creator of a map of the universe's distribution of dark matter, largely by means of observations with the Hubble Space Telescope to study gravitational lensing. Art seemed -- to me -- to amaze and please Dr. Massey by the excellence of his questions, judging from the delighted response elicited from the scientist, particularly when Art asked 'if dark matter is the only explanation for the gravitational phenomena observed, then can you ask instead if this means that your concept of gravity ITSELF is flawed, rather than attributing the effects to this elusive dark matter?' (or words to that effect; I'm only paraphrasing.) Massey seemed so pleased and thrilled to be engaged on this level that he positively bubbled with enthusiasm to answer the question; talked about observations of the fascinating bullet cluster; and explored all the other issues that Art drew out of him for a breath-taking three hour marathon.
Now, I've conducted talk shows myself, and during my career as a broadcaster logged some 10,000 hours on the air as a performer, interviewer, host, and announcer: let me tell you from personal experience that DOING THIS SORT OF THING IS VERY HARD! The greatest difficulty is, in fact, being able to LISTEN to the person you are interviewing. Art's mind is incredibly agile, facile, and quick; and he has the ability to be amazingly multi-dimensional, as he has to operate his own equipment, manage to look at the call bank and the clock and handle all the technical demands -- and STILL have the presence of mind to bounce ideas off his guests and react to their statements, and think of relevant followup questions. Phenomenal! Dare I say it? Genius!
In fact, I was so thrilled by this show (during whose first hour I also multi-tasked myself, viewing Jupiter in my driveway with my equatorial refractor) that I wrote Art an email, saying in part
Intellectually, this is one of the finest commercial broadcast interviews I HAVE HEARD IN MY LIFE -- and I've been listening to, and remembering, radio shows since 1949!
Your ability to structure and move along an interview is surely the pinnacle of anybody who has had the opportunity. I have been an amateur astronomer, and interested in astrophysics and cosmology, for forty years; but I COULD NOT have asked the questions you came up with, in such profusion, and with so much relevance! The thing that impressed me even more is that you originated such excellent queries, comments, and suggestions without even the slightest pause or break: spontaneously and quickly! This truly signifies your remarkable talent.
To be able to deal with a specialist on such a level is a true accomplishment... I hope that you arrange for an "Art Bell clone" some day, so that future generations can enjoy so much education and quality entertainment (maybe Asia Rayne Bell can be your protege?)
A bit "gushing", you say? Well -- maybe so. But I was 'high' from the experience of combining exquisite views of Jupiter -- in superbly steady air -- with exquisite talk and topics. My message to you "rationalists" is this: Art Bell is NOT an "enemy of science", at least not now! Listen to him while you can still do it: he's getting up there, as we all are; and one can't help but wonder how long commercial radio will tolerate such things as a three-hour discussion of astrophysics! Check his website for the upcoming topics, and when you see something that does not offend your exquisitely rationalist sensibilities, give it a try. Maybe you'll decide, as I have, that Art Bell can sometimes be ... almost Spock-like!
FLASH! At the opening of his show on Sunday night, 1 July 2007, Art Bell announced that once again HE IS RETIRING! So, regarding my suggestion that you try to listen to his interviews of scientists: as Emily Latella would have said, "Never mind..." And, to Art Bell: thanks for giving me so much enjoyment by talking occasionally about real science instead of merely the paranormal or the far-out, wacko fringe stuff.
Written one week after Art's retirement:
UPDATE, 9 July 2007: I have had a little bit of reaction to my commentary about Art Bell (though less than I would endure if I published a working email address.) The replies may be summarized essentially as something like this: "HOW DARE YOU praise that fraud?! Having that guy's show on the air is doing great harm to the public, even if he DOES, once in a while, interview a scientist. And his 'interviews' are pretty juvenile anyway."
This expected attitude, which did not surprise me as I anticipated it, even taking a chance that certain readers would "write off" anything else I published as having come from a tainted, unreliable moron who -- gasp! -- actually admitted listening to Art Bell. You can't win them all, and some people I know have remained my friends even though we have to agree to disagree in certain instances.
But now that Art has announced his final, ultimate, retirement (for those not keeping score, preceded by a strange episode years ago, related to some family problems; various bouts of back trouble -- I sympathize, for I too have some damaged vertebrae -- that made broadcasting for hours a painful trial; the death of his 'soul mate', his [third, fourth?] wife Ramona Bell; and maybe even others I don't remember) perhaps I should add some balancing negative criticisms to explain that I do have many of the the same complaints that interfere with the rationalists' respect or enjoyment of the show.
(1) The "Coast to Coast AM" standard fare is, of course, drivel. I don't accept shadow people, remote viewing, ghosts, electronic voice phenomena, native American spirit mythology, communications by the dead, UFOlogy, future psychic predictions, the worst global warming and/or cooling horror scenarios, and maybe 99% of the political, historical, and economic conspiracy theory stuff that make up the meat-and-potatoes of this mostly indigestible meal. When these topics are on the air, my radio almost always goes off, and I listen to some nice, pleasant, quiet classical music while I observe. Don't worry: I'm not a credulous "moron". Since Art Bell is responsible for morphing his earlier political talk show into a regular discussion of this paranormal or unreality-based silliness, he's not above being accused of cashing in on popular, nonsensical topics and beliefs (especially since, in person, he's not a believer in MOST of it.)
(2) Art's hard-science interviews are conducted personally on the awareness level of perhaps a fairly well-informed high school senior or college freshman. I would guess that his general understanding of science has been acquired by a rather casual, spotty method of reading popular material, the Net, and what science is conveyed in the modern thrillers (by Clancey et al.) that Art enjoys devouring. Now, that's not bad, considering that most science discussion on radio is appallingly superficial and dumb.
Aside from Dr. Dean Edell or a tiny number of the "lead science reporters" of the large mainstream networks, radio commentators have no science comprehension AT ALL. They aren't at high school level; worse, the typical radio talker is utterly indifferent to science, period. Furthermore, it has been admitted by television news and public affairs producers that broadcast fare is generally calibrated to be expressing little more sophistication than seventh-grade comprehension levels (down in the last few years from the high school freshman intellectual level of the prior generation.) So by this measure, Art stands out as something of a phenomenon in the commercial broadcast media. We ardent amateur science buffs can listen with condescension, knowing that if WE were at the mike we'd come up with some show-off question about space-time, quantum transposition, or supernovae; but few of us have the competence to meet any of the other challenges that make up the skills to create interesting, compelling broadcasting events. The sheer intelligence and cleverness of Art -- which one may perceive by observing the way the "gears turn" in his mind as he quickly thinks about and reacts to the comments of the scientists he interviews, about arcane topics he hasn't studied in depth -- are way beyond almost anyone else in commercial radio (with the exception of the admirable Edell who, of course, does not stray into general topics outside medicine and related social policy.)
(3) Art is neither a snob nor a pseudo-intellectual, and does not care a FIG about the negative, condescending opinions of the offended rationalists who are constantly scandalized and disgusted by "the face on Mars" or "the quickening". He is, for all practical purposes, a blue-collar guy who has worked with his hands for much of his life, far from academe and closer to the "common man" (women included) in his intended audience. Furthermore he's rather non-judgmental (most of the time) and does not seem impelled to change the minds of many of his callers, not to mention his interview subjects. He does not argue with them; if he disagrees it is expressed with a light, bemused touch (not the condescending sarcasm of, say, Larry King, who would sneer, as he hung up on a caller, "Have a good rest, sir!" As a radio engineer who has worked with Larry King behind the scenes when he did his network radio talk show, I can tell you that this famous interviewer tends to be a snobby, arrogant, and difficult egotist OFF the air, in person, rather than having the 'Larry King avuncular charm' evident in TV or radio appearances. Larry, whose real name is Zeiger, "puts on" most of his folksiness, along with his pseudonym, and is certainly sensitive about his public reputation amongst the intelligentsia; this is emphatically not the case with Art. And, can anybody for one tiny moment imagine Larry 'Empty Suit' King discussing string theory?)
Now, I have to say that most of the male middle-aged amateur astronomers I've had contact with at star parties, in astronomy club activities, and on forums seem to rush to insist that they are harshly skeptical, and would certainly NEVER "fall for" the nonsense of an irrational, untested belief; and they are anxious for you to know that. They're "ok" in that sense, and could not be mistaken for a "fool". Art simply doesn't care about that... this is either good, or very, very BAD, depending on your own orientation to orthodox science, and how judgmental you might be.
(4) Art's percentage of hard science topic interviews, vis a vis "nonsense", has improved but would never satisfy a rationalist. Without wasting my time doing statistical checking, I'd guess that he was averaging one "good" hard science interview for every three or four "junk" topics. Perhaps during the final year, he was frequently including a real scientist in one of his pair of weekend broadcasts. This is the period of his long career that has given me the greatest pleasure. I suspect that the most derisive readers who were disappointed by my praise of Art Bell simply had not followed him closely enough, recently, to be aware of this. (In contrast to the 'improved' topic selection during the end of his career, right after Art's retirement his network re-ran a 1997 program that I happened to catch from a Santa Cruz station while setting up to observe. Yes: the show was indeed an offense to a science-informed listener. It was all about the "object orbiting Hale-Bopp"; some crackpot tests -- now thoroughly debunked -- of "weighing a human soul" at the point of death; and other pseudo-scientific nonsense. It's almost as if Art Bell himself became 'educated' more and more, as his career progressed.)
(5) Is Art's willingness to stray from paranormal topics into "reality" a redemptive act, or doesn't this matter? Is he so tainted by irrationalism that no good can come of it? Some persons insist on this attitude; they're purists and think that it's "all or nothing." If you do any discussion of "nonsense", you aren't worthy or qualified to talk about "reality". This type of person insists on consistency, and maybe they live that kind of life themselves (I wonder...) I'm not entirely consistent myself, and many of my convictions and doubts are in the "agnostic" category rather than being firmly up against the edges of absolute certainty. I may know a lot more about science -- particularly the scientific method as applied to astronomy -- than I think Art Bell really does; but I am aware that a lot of speculative, cutting edge stuff is beyond me, and far from established dogma. I don't look at astronomy, biology, or physics with the perspective of an academic of (say) 1870. "There are more things on heaven and earth than are dreamt of..."
(6) To the "angry purists" I ask, what's wrong with a little fun or entertainment? I find nothing more amusing than hearing an exegesis from that strange character Richard C. Hoagland, especially while I carry on telescopic observing, trying -- myself -- to be careful and precise and not to experience self-delusions. It's a delicious irony that I am not picking up weird, non-existent, over-analyzed, imaginary phenomena whilst I observe; at the same time I'm hearing RCH rant about "NASA numerological conspiracies" or "crystal spires on the Moon" or "underground tube-like constructions on Mars." It's not quite as good as I imagine that it would be if I could transport Percival Lowell into our time, but it's close. While I shudder a little bit to hear that George Noory has made RCH the Coast To Coast AM "science advisor" I must admit that at least sometimes Hoagland is rational (for instance, when he debunks the "we never went to the Moon" cranks.) RCH and Stanton Friedman, to name but two of the regular non-mainstream guests, are at least clever, articulate, and brilliant in their ways: fun to listen to.
(7) Finally: Art Bell is miles ahead of his successors Noory and Punnett when genuine science topics are discussed. (Some would say: little consolation!) For Noory is -- simply -- credulous, and silly; and Punnett is self-consciously cute, while being a cypher when it comes to topics that border on physics. Yet they are good broadcasters, and as a retired person from that field of endeavor, both fellows receive at least a bit of my respect on that basis alone. Bell, however, towers (well, towered) above them both, if not in intellect compared generally to Ian Punnett's overall sensibility. And, Art is (was...) edgier: if you like, a bit scarier. He could become more irascible and quirky and humanly eccentric, at times, holding my interest (as if his show had a certain parallel to a stock car race, with disaster always looming.)
So, what's Art Bell's intellectual and scientific legacy? It is TERRIBLE, ATROCIOUS, UNFORGIVABLY DANGEROUS to one type of person, and to another, perhaps UNIQUELY COMPLEX AND EVOCATIVELY THOUGHT-PROVOKING. You decide.
Monday 25 June 2007, Monday 9 July, Friday 7 September, and Friday 19 October: Copyright (c) 2007, Stephen R. Waldee - All Rights Reserved
|
