A RAW DEAL

WHEN the message is anti-drug, the clandestine deal between the White House
and the television networks seems harmless, even helpful.

The networks put anti-drug messages in their programs.

President Bill Clinton's drug advisers reward them by allowing the networks
to sell ad time they otherwise would have to surrender to the government for
public-service ads. America sees television shows that denounce drugs; the
networks see a big discount; and the president sees a way to make television
more family-friendly without alienating his Hollywood benefactors.

The White House and the networks say the content-credit deal never inhibited
artistic freedom or instituted censorship. But ABC President Patricia
Fili-Krushel told The Associated Press that her network stopped
participating when the president's drug advisers starting asking to preview
scripts before they were broadcast.

When Uncle Sam secretly shapes television content by paying television
networks with ad time, we have reason to fear. What if the next message is
not as palatable as the anti-drug platform?

What if the next president wages his own stealth ideological campaign, one
that most people do not agree with, one that no reporter exposes?

This unholy alliance sets the White House, the networks and the American
taxpayers on a slippery slope to government propaganda and censorship. Let
the networks write their own scripts.

Let Uncle Sam stick to public-service announcements. And let the viewers
decide -- by the force of their response to networks and the advertisers who
finance them -- which television shows should survive and which should
perish.