The Oprah Winfrey Show approached me in September 1999 to to see if I would be a guest on their show to talk about something that happened to me almost two years ago. I'm having all sorts of mixed feelings about appearing on TV, so I've decided to let my readers vote:

January 2002: Poll is no longer active.

From: "J Grey"
Subject: Oprah Appearance Poll
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 01:06:26 PDT

Hi Cam, I voted Yes but also want to comment. As I clicked on your Fiction to take a look, I realized, it doesn't matter what your work is about. What happened to you two years ago is wrong and unjust and that should be addressed, especially in the public forum Oprah has available.

But I read a little of your work anyway. I'm glad I did because it's not my cup of tea AND that is the point. So what? You are a writer. The 50's afforded me a good education in censorship as rock and roll came in. The burning of records stuck me at that young age as no different than book burning. I'm not a fan of Picasso, so I don't look at his work. It's a personal choice, AND, I don't want his art taken down from museum collections. I detest violent movies, so I don't watch them. I don't want my opinions, or anyone else's - pro or con on any issue - forced on anyone, or determining what is "good and bad".

Another point, notice I said I read "a little" of your work? If I was a critic, which I'm not, how could I possibly come to any conclusion about your work if I didn't make a study of everything you have written? All this judging and criticizing by personal tastes shocks me because instead of progressing, society is reverting to the not too distant past where the one with the most money or power makes the rules, according to THEIR own tastes/ambitions. The artists and thinkers get blamed for the ills of the world. And of the soul.

That's my two cents. I hope you do speak out about this on Oprah...(I'll relent and watch her show, this once.) ;-) All the campaigning going on, Cam..this needs to be in the public eye. Too many candidates not taking any stands about these issues. You are aware of Tipper Gore's agenda about censorship, are you not? Good luck with the attorney situation too. If you haven't heard from ACLU before the show, the publicity should bring someone forward.

I enjoy your Cam World page and have learned so much from the things you have to offer there. You first came to my attention on the mylook.com site, which I love. Initially, I thought you was a "web" cam page...admitting this to you here...but of course, have been enthralled since my first visit. Very best of luck to you and I hope support for you continues to grow.

Sincerely,

JK Grey

---

From: Andrew Hughey
Subject: Oprah
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 09:36:13 -0400

This is probably a good chance to get your story heard but a much wider audience. Hopefully, it'll open a few more eyes to problems like this. Not just the amount of leeway that companies have with their employees (and how much they abuse that power) but also about why folks think that if something is on the web it's probably bad/worse/a cheap imitation of something in traditional media. Too bad you have to dredge up bad memories, but judging from the frequency which you mention it, you need some good cathartic release. So, although you'll probably be doing some other folks in similar situations some good, ultimately it'll be good for you, too. Unless they think you're a sicko and are just setting you up for a fall, Oprah-style ;v)

-Andrew

---

From: Giles Turnbull
Subject: dont do oprah
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 17:47:51 +0100

Appearing on TV will not help you, Cam. Fame is bunk. TV producers are desperate to fill airtime and will twist your story so that it fits their own agenda (I should know, I'm a journalist). You will not get the chance to tell the whole story, like you do on your site. You will get a few minutes of time to tell a shortened version - which will then be edited down to fit round the adverts.

Your site serves the purpose of telling your story. Going on TV will not help you, it will only re-open old wounds and could be quite embarrassing too.

:)

Giles
http://gilest.org

---

From: Hartung,Dan,CNA Insurance
Subject: oprah
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 15:54:14 -0500

Well, so far it looks like people say "yes". I did, too, although I actually suspected most of your readers would say "no"! Here's my reasoning [and I'll note that I read your site and the story about your job loooong before I got into weblogs, much less yours].

While you have mixed feelings about the incident, since you've personally moved on, I think this probably makes it easier to go on the show and discuss it. You won't be angry, you will be relaxed and confident and able to laugh at the whole thing, which will enhance your credibility. And that's important because this kind of situation is only going to become more common.

If you'd said you'd published your stories in a literary journal while teaching library skills, and they found the journal and the stories and objected, it would have been a big joke. Everybody would have understood that this was an artistic endeavor that had nothing to do with your job, and that the women chose themselves to look up the material. But add "The Internet" to the equation, and suddenly people get all creeped out. That's wrong. And there are now more people with "creepy" stories on their websites than probably ever got published in any lit journal. The potential for your story to be repeated, which has probably already happened, continues to rise.

I worry myself about the stuff I put in my weblog getting back to my employers, but mainly as an embarrassment. I can't imagine being fired over it.

Dan Hartung
Change Management -- NXi Application Deployment

---

From: Owen Leonard
Subject: Just say no to Oprah!
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 19:14:29 -0400

Cam!

Don't go on Oprah unless they guarantee you in writing that your story will be portrayed favorably. Since they're not likely to do that, don't go!

-- Owen

---
The Little Czech Primer
http://www.czechprimer.org

---

Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 12:33:02 -0400
From: Tony Shepps
Subject: [camlist] Cam should go on Oprah!

...as long as they provide all the transportation and lodging and whatnot.

I'm normally against this sort of thing because most people are too concerned about being on TV, to the point of ridiculousness. Airing one's dirty laundry for the entertainment of millions is silly and sometimes obnoxious, and simply being on TV in return is not enough of a payback.

But in this case, Cam has a very strong story and one that people ought to hear. I'll guess that Oprah's producers are interested in it from the take that it's all about the Internet. But it's really about on-the-job harassment, control, and civility in the face of humanity.

In these risk-averse days, every spot on your skin is cancer, every boyfriend is a potential date-rapist or stalker, every air traveller is a drug courier or mad bomber, and every coach and neighbor is a pedophile. So much attention has been paid to the few cases where things have gone wrong that the effect on humanity has been for us to shut and lock our doors, quivering in fear for what will happen. When Columbine resulted in *increased* intolerance for people who are "different" it was clear that things are seriously going wrong. Society is moving into a xenophobic time and I for one am afraid for what it might bring us. Every time a story is told to show the other side, it can help.

---

From: "Dean Landsman - LANDSMAN COMMUNICATIONS GROUP"
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 14:24:46 -0400
Subject: [camlist] Just Say No to Oprah

Cam, A few years ago I was recruited by an Oprah-like show. The producers and "guest handlers" were quite earnest in their attempts to convince me to take a day (at their expense) and fly in, do the show. As the discussions ensued it became apparent that they perceived me as "guest with specific slant" and wanted to be certain I'd fill that role for them. Further down the road they decided to role-play a bit with me, and asked me "possible questions the host might ask me." The explanation for this was that the hostess would need to be able to handle any answers that might arise, and that she wouldn't want any surprises which would be bad for the flow of the show. Having spent the majority of my adult life in electronic media, I smelled the bullshit rather clearly. When push came to shove, what they wanted was be sure that I was going to fill my role as they percieved and planned. They were also looking for me to say some things which were neither my true experience nor how I felt. They had the audacity to try to coach me in how I should answer the questions. Needless to say, I told them to find a willing patsy, as I was not their man. At that point, being the driven, determined, and obnoxious slimebuckets that they are, they asked if I could recommend such a patsy. That was the end of my interaction with these "respectable television journalists." These folks were not of the Jenny Jones/Jerry Springer/Rikki Lake caliber, either. This was, supposedly and purportedly, a "higher level" program. Yeah, right. Avoid it, Cam. Go to Chicago on your own schedule terms and enjoy the city.

---

From: Steven Olson
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:48:07 -0700
Subject: [camlist] Oprah

Dean Landsman's experience coincides with my own. It wasn't TV, just a feature article for the lead feature in the Saturday business section of a big regional paper. I was interviewed by the Business Editor, who i knew slightly form a professional organization where we'd met.

Anyway, we talked and then he hit me with "would you say that ..." followed by the quote that he wanted to put in my mouth. It was somethng like "the traditioanl business comunity, especially the banks, do not understand either the growing regional importance of the software industry, nor it's special capital needs." It was, in effect, the axe that he was grinding that month. I told him that it could be true, but it was not my experience because i simply had not looked for capital in this market.

When the article came out, it said "According to Olson,..." followed by his quote! He'd asked if he could put his words into my mouth, and when i'd said "no" he'd simply done it anyway!

The article interviewed the president of another software company, too. He asked how much the company made and was told it was none of his business. So the Editor played twenty questions and got the interviewee to answer that it was "less than a milion dollars" - this was a one or two person business with perhaps 150,000 a year gross. He also asked how big the company could grow "in your wildest dreams". The answer was "I can't realistically imagine anymore than 5 employees, but i guess if everything really took off we could be as big as 30".

The article stated that their revenue was "just under a million dollars", and that they were "planning to add an additioanl 30 employees during the next year" !!

So much for journalistic integrity. Unfortunately, i think this type of behavior is pretty much standard.

Anyway.. Steven Olson