SHOW, BUT TELL

Networks, government are both to blame

The government has been paying TV networks for including anti-drug messages
in some of their show's scripts. And the networks took the sponsorship money
and never announced the arrangement to viewers, as broadcast regulations
require.

The problem certainly isn't that an anti-drug message was sent. The problem
is that the government should not be using taxpayer dollars to influence the
culture through TV programming, especially without letting folks know about
the message-sending effort. Another problem is the networks' decision not to
disclose the deal appropriately. Just imagine if the message concerned
gun-rights or abortion. Would we want the government quietly infiltrating
the air waves on those issues? Certainly not.

The Federal Communications Commission has now warned the networks
involved -- ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox and the WB -- not to break disclosure rules
again. It said that failing to identify the government's sponsorship as
required was wrong and could get them into trouble.

The warning came with no basis for enforcement action and does not impose a
fine. Smart move, really. After all, it was the government that seduced the
networks into becoming message-sending partners in the first place. The
networks made more than $20 million over the past two years for including
the messages in scripts of popular TV shows. To fine the networks now would
be confusing at best, betrayal at worst.

Robert Thompson of the Center for the Study of Popular Television at
Syracuse University told the Los Angeles Times, "The TV networks must feel
'damned if you do and damned if you don't.'" He added that TV networks get a
lot of pressure from both the right and the left about cleaning up their
programming.

"To an extent, this is like a sting," he said. "The government is slapping
the hands of the networks for doing something that the government asked the
networks to do."

Politicians, cultural leaders and concerned parents have been asking the
networks to clean up their programming, which in many cases has grown too
vulgar for some families' tastes. But most expected networks to do so of
their own volition, not because the government paid them to rise to the
occasion. The networks can hardly feel damned if they do and damned if they
don't. They are surely not victims.

Still, Thompson is right in his implication that the government has bungled
this the worst. The government must stick to paying for anti-drug
advertising that is clearly labeled as a government-sponsored message. To
slip messages into scripts without telling people is downright creepy.