FEDERAL MEDDLING MAKES MESS OF ANTI-DRUG EFFORT

After being embarrassed about a cozy little arrangement they had
developed, the federal drug czar's office and TV networks are
protesting their good intentions. But there's no denying that
government money was quietly used with the intent of shaping
television programs into vehicles for convincing teens not to use drugs.

It's outrageous for TV networks to receive government support to slip
any sort of messages -- even anti-drug ones -- into their shows.

If this deception is a good idea, why was everyone so quiet about it?
Of course, it was a rotten idea. The government should not be using
its money to get its favorite messages into the work of supposedly
independent, creative productions without viewers being consciously
aware of it.

Last week, the Internet magazine Salon published an in-depth look at
the advertising program run out of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy. The office, headed by retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, buys
network TV ads under a $200 million per year allocation from Congress.
The money came with a congressional requirement that any ads must be
purchased at half-price. The main way for networks to meet the
discount requirement was for them to donate an equal amount of time
for additional public service ads. That's all fine. But the drug
control office allowed or encouraged the networks to count programs
with anti-drug messages as donations just like advertising time.

Oddly enough, script writers and TV producers didn't know what was up.
But when they honestly did shows that had anti-drug themes, the
networks went to the drug control office for credit on the ad deals.

In their subsequent scramble to look good, McCaffrey and TV executives
have made a couple of reasonable points. The program wasn't entirely
secret. In an initial press packet released in 1998, for instance,
there had been some vague references to networks being able to get
credit for shows with anti-drug messages. More importantly, realistic
TV depiction of the drugs' consequences are important.

But it's simply unethical for the government to slip money to TV
networks in exchange for approved messages without ongoing disclosure
to viewers. It's not generally a good idea to have the government
buying the content of programming at all. But the problem is
compounded terribly when the viewers -- and even people directly
associated with making the shows -- are kept in the dark. Anything
short of full disclosure with each show will inevitably smack of state
manipulation of public thought.

In the long run, such tactics serve to obscure the truthful messages
about the problems of drug abuse. McCaffrey's office and his boss,
President Clinton, entirely miss that point when they defend the
advertising program.

Only honesty works, especially with the target audience of teen-age
viewers. Anything else will inevitably become a joke. The networks'
deal will now make young people look more suspiciously at any shows
that tell the truth about drugs. Only drug dealers ought to be
laughing about such a foul-up.