FEDS, TV NETWORKS ON SLIPPERY SLOPE

As abhorrent as illicit drugs are, and as imperative as an anti-drug
campaign is, the far-too-cozy relationship between the television networks
and the Office of National Drug Control Policy cannot be allowed to
continue.

It is a relief that drug czar Barry McCaffrey has taken one step to stem the
damage.

By submitting advance copies of scripts and shows for review by McCaffrey's
office, the networks saved themselves $22 million that otherwise would have
been spent on public service announcements required by law. By making
programming suggestions, the government insinuated its wholly legitimate
"drugs are evil" message into a medium that is more palatable and seductive
than conventional advertising.

McCaffrey said Tuesday his office and its ad agency will no longer review
episodes until after they have aired. Good, but not good enough. Creators of
entertainment programs will certainly feel pressure to insert messages that
will get the drug czar's approval.

And the harm is to the citizenry, who rightfully rely on the belief that the
government and the media maintain distance, and that government messages are
not being secretly sent to them via their favorite program.

But somehow, no one has decided to take the absolutely-minimum step of
notifying the public every time that a program is cooperating with the
National Youth Media Campaign.

Even if the government isn't reviewing scripts in advance, there's trouble
in the notion of scripts being written with some government-approved message
in mind -- especially if viewers aren't warned.

What if the next message isn't so universally accepted? Most everyone is up
in arms against drugs. But on this slippery slope, what if the message were
about abortion or religion?

Members of Congress, who hold the purse strings for McCaffrey's office,
ought to be asking whether this unseemly practice reflects the government's
desperation in the seemingly unwinnable drug war.

Conversely, the networks need to stay as independent as they can. (Until its
1987 repeal by the Federal Communications Commission, the Fairness Doctrine
required broadcasters to air opposing views on controversial issues;
stations still jump through hoops to win licenses.) It's not in the public's
interest that these two become more involved.

And, with the lines between the networks' entertainment and news divisions
becoming more blurred, is it all that far-fetched to imagine, using ABC as
an example, that the government's mantra on heroin might find its way from
"NYPD Blue" this year, to a news anchor's script next?