Why I seldom go on television

     So CNN tapped on my cage Friday morning.
     "I am reaching out on behalf of CNN's show, Newsroom with Kim Brunhuber, which will be simulcast across CNN International and CNN Domestic channels," a producer wrote. "Might you be willing and available to join Kim tomorrow morning (Saturday 30th August) during the 4am CDT (5am ET) hour?"
     Four a.m. is kinda early.  And I'd never heard of Kim Brunhuber. I think the last time I tuned into CNN was for the election in November. Otherwise, life is too short. But with the troops on their way to Chicago, the eyes of the world are fixing on Chicago. Shouldn't I wave back? Do I want to be part of the mix or not?
      "This would be to discuss the Trump administration's preparation to conduct a major immigration enforcement operation in Chicago as soon as next week," she continued, "according to multiple sources familiar with the planning, marking the latest escalation between the president and a Democratic-led city." 
     I decided to play for time.
     "At 4 a.m.?" I wrote back. "Can I be in my pajamas?"
     She took me seriously. 
     "We understand how unsocial an hour it is for your Saturday, but would be incredibly grateful for your analysis on this," she said. "Of course, you can get straight back into bed as soon as the hit is finished."
     Yeah, that is going to happen. Though the idea of my words going around the globe was appealing. Mr. International. I can't both scorn those cringing at the orange menace and then pass on a chance to speak out on a stage far larger than the modest midwestern potato patch where my words glisten like dew three days a week before vanishing. I decided to send it up the chain of command. Maybe they'd say "No" and solve the problem for me.
     "I'm usually up anyway at that hour," I replied. "I've run it by my boss. After 38 years at the paper, I'm trying to last two more and not get myself fired. Sometimes they view TV as the locus of all meaning, sometimes as boosting a competitor. Let me get back to you as soon as I get the go-ahead."
      CNN spooned on the honey.
     "A relief to know that we have some chance here!" she wrote. "If it is any help, we really enjoy your blog, particularly your assessment of pogo sticks... "
     That gave me pause. An obvious lie over a thumb-twiddly bit of nothing I'd tossed on my blog to fill a day. They were flattering me. There's a Lucy-and-the-football quality to these TV shows. I always think they are going to "lead to something" but they never do. Why bother? Alas, my boss was all for it.

     I replied:
     "I talked to my editor, and we're good to go. The pogo stick post was filler (I write every single day, without fail). If I seem reluctant, it's because my experiences with TV are almost invariably bad. (Here's a post more illustrative of that, you might enjoy). So let's go ahead and do it."
     The link I sent was about going on the BBC last year to talk about "Hatless Jack," a book about how John F. Kennedy didn't kill off men's hats. Not that the BBC knew that, and no amount of my trying to tell them seemed to matter. They don't really care what you have to say; they're just filling time. 

      She didn't appear to look at it. Now that I was on the hook, time to consider the segment.
     "Please send through any thoughts you might wish to share with the team on what the latest reaction is/ your own take," she wrote.
     "My take?" I replied, "The tyranny playbook tells would-be dictators to start at the margins — thus immigrants, like trans folks, who are viewed with fear and suspicion by their base, can have their rights curtailed. The rest of us come next. Chicago had 3 million residents in 1950. Now we have 2.7 million. We welcome immigrants because a) it's good for the economy; b) it's good for the culture; c) it's the morally right thing to do. Trump has long used Chicago as a racist dog whistle — it's America's great Black metropolis — and wants to break the city the way he's trying to break prestigious universities and medical science, so there will be no one to oppose him when he scuppers elections. Roughly that."
     That seemed clear and succinct, to me, but apparently did not give them a sense of what I had to say. Another producer chimed in with:
     "Would you be able to send some bullet points/thoughts at some point today? Can be short - just to help Kim form his questions."
     For what they no doubt pay Kim, I'd somehow manage to conjure up a few queries based on what I'd already sent. It's not like I'd sent some ball of mystery. By now it was 1:35 p.m. I answered this way:
     "It's a broad topic, but something like:
     "— Immigrants are and always have been vital to Chicago. Get out of downtown, and it's one ethnic enclave after another.
     "— The city was completely correct to try to mitigate the human suffering caused by busloads of immigrants that Texas started sending here.
     "— Chicago is completely within its rights to refuse to cooperate with masked ICE agents seizing residents from the streets without any kind of due process of law.
     "— There is no need for the National Guard or the Army here — we can pick up our own garbage, thank you. Crime is at a historical low, and the military doesn't offer an actual solution anyway. Gov. Pritzker insists that this is all part of a Trump plan to use the military to squelch voting, something any decent, patriotic American must oppose.

     "How's that?"
     Two hours passed, then they had a concern:
     "Thanks Neil, one more question — just for clarification, are you saying illegal immigrants shouldn't face enforcement proceedings?"
     That out-of-left-field question gave me pause — a chill, really — and reminded me of right wing hosts playing gotcha. Putting words in my mouth. I had read somewhere that CNN was drifting to the right, trying to peel viewers from Fox News.
     "No, of course not," I replied. "I'm saying they shouldn't be snatched off the streets in extra-judicial kidnappings by masked thugs and shipped to prisons in Africa. Nor should they be demonized as violent criminals when most of them are not."

     Just the question got my back up.
    "Is this too far outside CNN's new business model?" I continued. "We don't have to do this. You asked me. I don't want to be yelled at and have my words twisted."
     At this point a third producer called, and we had a long, lovely chat, which set my mind at ease. Though a few minutes later, I got this:
     "Unfortunately, due to the developing story on Missouri redistricting, our programming has been adjusted, and we are no longer doing the segment on Chicago immigration enforcement as earlier planned. Please stand down on this request for now."
     "Stand down"? Military jargon. As if they were my superior officers. With an echo of Trump's wink to the Proud Boys: "Stand back and stand by."  

     I wondered whether I had talked myself out of a five to seven minutes of a global speaking gig, whether they had rejected me because of the clear-eyed Midwestern truths I was ready to utter. 

     Nah, a scheduling change sounds more likely. Either way, I have to admit, I was greatly relieved. Even happier when I woke up Saturday at the leisurely hour of 4:12 a.m. and realized I'd slept later than if I'd done the show.

     Note to self: next time TV asks, just say no, right off the bat. It saves time and effort.