Everyone is making good points, but maybe we disagree about what one would call good magic or not. Of course someone should have a personality. But how often is the magic good? I think that may be where the debate lies.
To tell you the truth, one of the few I heard in an interview who was great and suave was Chan Canasta. A great artist too. (I'm talking about that he did paintings). Also Milbourne Christopher was supposedly an interesting interview. Orson Welles, although try as he did, he wasn't really a magician but had some kind of personality. I thought the Amazing Randi came across as interesting on TV. Few and far between. Pardon me for livin'.

I thought of a couple of examples. When Slydini was on Cavette with Sophia Loren...he had personality and his magic had personality. He probably wasn't a good interview. Channing Pollock was suave and a beautiful rich woman wanted to marry him. I don't know if he could do an interview.
You guys can probably do great interviews and great magic. As you were.

Maybe Mac King.

All the names you mentioned, except for Mac King, were from fifty or more years ago, and yes they were all "celebrities" in their day. Considering the number of people doing magic out there nowadays, the percentage who fall into this category -- or who even try -- is probably microscopic. But it all goes back to showing a personality or not showing one.

As far as what one would call good magic, who is the "one?" Someone who does magic tricks or a member of the general public? There have been many discussions here over the years about how the perceptions are different.

All it comes to is opinion. I don’t particularly enjoy watching David Blaine. Does that mean he doesn’t do “good magic”? Of course not. It only speaks to my personal opinion about how I choose to spend my time.

This is why this type of discussion is silly and meaningless and sort of pointless.

Also sort of far afield from if a “bad magician” impacts a good one or not.

Yeah, no. One is a preference, I understand that, but bad magic as seen all over youtube isn't necessarily opinion or subjective, but some is simply blatantly bad regardless of presence and opinion.

Okay, so just for the sake of argument...

Should we define what we think constitutes a bad magic performance? My list would include:

Obviously not rehearsed;

Parroting the patter (doesn't believe a word of it);

Tricks stretched out with too much talking;

No personality, or no connection with the audience;

"Lookit how clever I am."

I have a lot if things I would consider “bad magic”. My list may very well be entirely different from another equally valid list.

Magic is not like most of the other performance arts in that there is not really an “in tune”. Many of the other performance arts have ways to tell good from bad other than if they make money. SO many of the acts others rave about leave me uninterested and bored.
While there are the painfully obvious bad acts, when you get down much further it really is a matter of taste.

Even within many of the arts it is this same thing. The Gangnam Style guy sure made some money. Was he “good”? Well not if you ask me but someone sure liked it.

I leave judgements of that sort of Good and bad to others and have turned to sticking to what I prefer and leave it at that. Nobody can argue with me when I personally “prefer” one sort of thing as opposed to another. I am 100% correct every time for my own personal preferences. As is everyone else for their own.

All that being said an act you perceive as bad has no impact on one you perceive as good unless perhaps they share a show.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the magical-industrial complex.