BIG BROTHER IS PROGRAMMING

''Is the new TV show good? It is an entertaining question when asked around
the kitchen table. It is a financial question when asked in a Hollywood
studio or Madison Avenue office. But it is a scary question when asked by
regulators in Washington.

Three recent events have made this question commonplace in Washington: the
revelation that the White House drug office had reviewed network television
programs to assess their propriety; a now aborted effort by the FCC to
evaluate the educational quality of religious programming; and an inquiry
by the Federal Communications Commission that may require free political
advertising.

A czarist White House: Until last month, few knew the White House was
clandestinely reviewing television programs with the cooperation of TV
networks. If a show contained a sufficiently anti-drug message, the White
House offered to reduce the network's obligation to provide free time for
anti-drug public service announcements. Awarding government subsidies for
certain kinds of scripts and programming undercuts the very core of
broadcasters' independence and blurs the line between programming and
propaganda. It also reflects a governmental arrogance about what is the
best type of programming for viewers -- and an effort to hide the
government's role.

The administration's reaction to the unmasking of this hidden process has
been brazen pride, stressing the importance and success of the anti-drug
message. No doubt, some in the administration would have us believe the
ends do justify the means and that constitutional rights to freedom of
speech and other activities can be eroded in the name of an anti-drug
campaign or other popular policy.

A secular FCC: Last December, the FCC announced a decision that reveals a
similar willingness to cast government in the role of programmer in an
effort to advance good messages. In an effort to provide guidance to
noncommercial television licensees, the FCC ruled that at least 50 percent
of an educational station's programming must be educational, cultural or
instructional and found that many types of religious programming would not
count.

For example, the FCC found that programming devoted to religious
exhortation, proselytizing or statements of personally held religious views
and beliefs would not qualify as educational. On the other hand, shows that
explore religion from a literary or historical perspective did qualify. The
FCC ultimately rescinded its guidance, but did not specifically abandon the
notion that government may judge speech as good or bad.

The problem with government advancement of good speech is that by necessity
it must define good and reject bad speech. Besides the inherently
problematic nature of such an evaluation, the process almost inevitably
leaves licensees with no choice but to seek government approval for their
programming. Perhaps educational licensees would send in their shows in
advance to assess whether they are overly focused on personal religious
beliefs or whether the half-hour devoted to Torah instruction is mere
exhortation.

Free speech only for politicians: Similarly misguided is a recent FCC
proceeding to assess whether government should require broadcasters to
offer free airtime to candidates. According to its advocates, the program
is designed to improve political discourse and better educate the voting
public. Besides the dubious constitutionality of such a program, it too
creates a dangerous opportunity for government to control and approve
certain media messages - and could well lead to replication of the
invidious approach of the White House Drug Control Office. For example,
would the guest appearances by Hillary Clinton on the "Late Show" with
David Letterman or by Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, on the "Tonight
Show" be screened by the FCC in order to award credit under such a free air
time obligation? Would the government end up judging which candidates could
participate, or which broadcast programs actually improve the nation's
political discourse?

The dangerous aspect of these policies is their ability to grow from quite
innocent roots. No one favors drug use by children, or is against
educational programming, or is opposed to more rigorous political debate.
Yet these seeds grow to form the basis of government actions that can
advance government-selected messages over others. We should be mindful that
the First Amendment is a prohibition on the government abridgement of
speech; it is not an invitation for government-reviewed speech or
government-sanctioned speech or government-subsidized speech.

Government operates best when it allows all messengers to offer their
views, allowing the American people to decide which take root and which
wither away. To the extent that government must speak at all, we are all
better served by clear identification of the government role. When
government and private speech become intertwined, the First Amendment is at
risk.

Harold Furchtgott-Roth is a member of the Federal Communications Commission.