WHEN CONSPIRACY FOR GOOD IS BAD

Outrageous, what the television networks have done. I don't mean poisoning
the American mainstream with sex and violence. Much worse, they've been
caught red-handed conspiring with the government to spread propaganda
against drug abuse.

The law requires television, in return for the free use of the public
airwaves, operate "in the public interest, convenience, and necessity."

In their defense, it should be said that the networks didn't act out of
some high-minded notion of obligation to society, but for money. But that's
not enough to excuse this departure from profit over everything.

You see, Congress appropriated a billion dollars for antidrug ads in the
media, reckoning that this was a good investment, since illegal drugs cost
America $100 billion and 2,000 lives a year. To get a bigger bang for the
buck, Congress required the media to match dollars for ads with free
antinarcotic messages.

At first, the networks did that through public-service ads, shown mainly
when few were watching.

When prosperity made these time slots more valuable, the networks shifted
to inserting antidrug messages into entertainment shows.

That is actually much more effective, as I learned some years ago when I
attended a public-health conference on smoking.

It found that just having the hero not pick up a cigarette in a sitcom was
more helpful than any number of ads.

Having a character in "Friends" swear off cocaine, for example, or somebody
in "Beverly Hills 90210" say "no" to marijuana is a constructive way of not
glamorizing drug abusers as role models for teenagers. Drug czar Barry
McCaffrey's office would then check the scripts to make sure the mandate of
Congress was being fulfilled.

There was no secret about this arrangement to anyone who followed the
public appropriations hearings. But the Internet magazine Salon, looking
for a scoop, exposed this act of public-private cooperation.

Then, the white knights of the printed press rode to the rescue of the
First Amendment, which was being imperiled by letting government officials
see sitcom scripts.

"A deeply unhealthy arrangement," said The New York Times.

"Networks trade integrity for a few commercials," said USA Today.

But then, guess what? It turned out that 250 newspapers, including The New
York Times and USA Today, have similar arrangements, matching paid antidrug
ads with free antidrug ads.

And so, this government-media conspiracy for the public good turns out to
be bigger than we thought.

It makes one wish that television would go back to making money the
old-fashioned way - with sex, violence, and million-dollar quiz
shows.