DELIVER RIGHT MESSAGE ON DANGERS OF DRUGS A Jan. 13 Times Union article explained how the White House drug policy officials previewed some prime-time shows, looking for anti-drug themes in the shows. If the officials sign off on the shows' anti-drug content, the networks receive credit reducing the number of costly anti-drug public service announcements they are forced to air. The article further said some individuals and organizations thought this was an affront to the First Amendment. Can you believe that anyone would disagree with this, and furthermore conclude that this threatens our First Amendment rights? Doesn't the anti-drug message have more importance than stepping on the creative, independent toes of the networks? Listen to what the misguided Media Access Project said about this: "This is the most craven thing we've ever heard of yet. to turn over content control to the federal government for a modest price is an outrageous abandonment of the First Amendment.'' I'm a believer in the First Amendment, despite its obvious abuses in this country. However, I think the government has worked a creative compromise here to attain a very worthwhile goal. If the networks' independence or creativity is being threatened, so be it. They have far too much latitude now, as is evidenced by what they are "getting away with'' on prime-time programming. It is clear here that the importance of anti-drug messages far outweighs the petty concerns of this Media Access Project and others. Our young adults need to be delivered the right message about the dangers of drug use. Network programming provides the right medium for that message. MARK DAILEY, Saratoga Springs
No member comments available...
|