OK, this is weird: I’ve been invited to appear this Sunday on CNN’s "Reliable Sources" to talk about the California wildfires.

I’m no expert (obviously) and have never pretended to be, so I’m not sure if this is even worth watching.  But there it is.  I’ve been paired up with a conservative blogger, so simply because of the format alone, I’m not expecting much in the way of actual conversation.  Most of these left-right talking-head things really nothing more than competitive evangelism, where two sides try to sell their talking points over each other in a very limited period of time.  I can’t stand that sort of rubbish, I don’t intend to participate in it, and I told the producer so.  Surprised she still invited me.  Either this will be surprisingly cool or the English language has its limits.

What rarely gets pointed out about the conventional talking head left-right format, although it should be self-evident: whoever may be correct in a given discussion, left or right, the severe time limitations also virtually ensure equal time for someone to spew complete crap — unless either the moderator is hip and brave enough to call shenanigans (rare), or both participants approach it with open minds and intellectual honesty (rarer still).  Most of what I’ve seen, nobody goes away learning a damn thing, and at least some absolute falsehoods get declared with sincerity and stand without rebuttal at the end.  Then we wonder why large chunks of the electorate are confused on the most basic facts of entire wars.

So I accept the invitation with severe reservations.  Frankly, I don’t care what I think about the wildfires, much less what any blogger or pundit or news commentator might think.  I have no desire to hit a bunch of talking points under fire like I’m back doing stand-up and I’ve got to get to the killer bit in the four minutes before the commercial.  It’s just not interesting.  I care about what actual scientists think, with time and perspective and research and peer review.

Unfortunately, CNN doesn’t have a Rolodex entry for the League of Attractive Scientists.  (I asked the producer.  Really.  She laughed, and I bet if someone organized such a group, she’d put them on in a second.)

So it’ll be me, balding white guy, and some right-leaning woman — who I assume is much younger and more attractive than I am, this being commercial TV — talking about things (a) other people really know about, some of which (b) we’ve read.  What great purpose this serves, I’m honestly not sure.  Also, we’ll chat about what we think about what we saw in the media this week.  Eight minutes later, HeadOn, apply directly to the forehead! for you guys, a trip back home to sleep for me.  Such a refreshing change from every other damn thing on the tube. 

I’m not even sure why I’m doing this, other than I tend not to say no to new experiences.  (This is why I’m about to spend time in England, Northern Ireland, Mexico, probably much of South America, and possibly Tanzania in the next six months.  And then probably moving to Australia.  Saying yes to unexpected things makes life fizzy.  Highly recommended.)

Ten years ago, I probably would have been excited, mistakenly seeing this as validating, even an opportunity, when it’s just the gaping empty maw of 24/7 media seeking perpetual nourishment.  Now I just hope to have one useful conversation with bright, friendly people and go home.  Is that asking too much?  I’m curious.

We’ll see how it goes.  I can only hold up my end.  I guess the point I’d like to make going in, on this show about media coverage of major issues: until we figure out how to have more actual, um, experts on TV regularly discussing the many underlying causes of the fires (or whatever the latest disaster to come may be) — dispassionately, and without a partisan agenda — we haven’t even begun to solve anything.  (Implementing any changes would be a whole other magilla.)  Not bloody damn likely, I know.

But until then, as a nation, we’re smoking in bed, and then wondering why we keep waking up on fire.

I may also sneak in a polite word about the limitations of shoehorning every damn issue into this manichean up/down left/right ongoing ceremonial argument machine.  I know they sort of have to, now that we’ve been so well polarized that they’ll get accusations of bias if they do almost anything else.  But still.  (This wouldn’t be ambushing the host; I told the producer exactly how I feel about this, and she said she was cool with it.)

If the thing turns into a partisan deal, well, I’m cramming almost as if it’s another Jeopardy! call, just in case.  Who does "better" in that exchange is probably up to Howie more than anything else.  But I really hope it’s civil and involves some actual thinking.

One positive idea, maybe: has anybody ever suggested a reward-the-good-guys, inverted version of a media boycott — buying extra crap when somebody actually does some great broadcasting?

I mean, if CNN went out and got the leading environmental scientists, urban planners, and fire experts — not partisan hacks, not talk radio hosts, not elected politicians, and not me and some other blogger, for gods’ sake — to sit not for eight minutes but for a three-night in-depth roundtable moderated by a non-partisan scientist who hasn’t registered with either major party because he’s too busy solving actual problems… I would buy every single goddam thing they advertised.

I would buy the HeadOn.  I would buy crates of the stuff.  I would apply it directly to my forehead.  Maybe a million other people would, too.

Ah, impossible dreams.  But for now, we go to media with the shows we have.