CENSORS AT WORK

Jan. 22 -In an effort to send subliminal messages to the public, the White
House is trading television networks $22 million in required advertising in
exchange for aggressive, anti-drug messages inserted into regular
programming.

The networks get credit for shows containing approved anti-drug messages,
which allows them to then sell that ad time for big profits.

However well-intentioned, this trade troubles us. If the motive is to make
drug abuse unattractive, morality lectures in "Home Improvement" or "ER"
probably won't do the trick.

Congress' yearly allotment for antidrug advertising, more than $185 million,
likely would be better spent on education programs for at-risk youths.

Collusion between big government and big business lets the government decide
what the public will think. Such direct interference in the marketplace of
ideas is antithetical to the philosophy of a free and open society.

It's troubling enough that the feds require networks to air advertising that
expounds government views. But an arrangement to let the government approve
or reject scripts amounts to intellectual bullying.

These issues go to the heart of free speech. In this era of mega-mergers,
fewer entities already control a larger portion of what we take in.

In the wake of such alliances as America Online and Time Warner, questions
about content become ever more urgent. Who dictates what is in our living
rooms? What perspectives are we excluding? And under what circumstances does
a show's anti-drug content become enforced political correctness? If
networks let the government tell them what to air, how do we know what
they're told not to air?

The answers are disquieting: A mild, politically correct idea, coupled with
corporate expediency, puts us on a slippery slope that restricts our
perspectives and limits our intake of all available information.

If all drug-influenced perspectives were excised, great literature, popular
songs and common children's stories might be banished: Alice in Wonderland.
The Wizard of Oz. Native American Culture 101. Jimi Hendrix. The musical
"Tommy." Even Shakespeare illustrated what historians believe was some
"Purple Haze." This arrangement to "influence the public subliminally," as
Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project puts it, is
treacherous indeed.