ANTI-DRUG PROGRAMS: TV IN BED WITH FEDS

PASADENA - If you're watching "Stark Raving Mad" on NBC - and millions of
people apparently are - there can be only one reason: You must be high.

"Kick the habit of ludicrously bad television. Just say no! This message
brought to you by the U.S. government."

If only the office of the drug czar were this straightforward about its
involvement in prime-time television - instead of script-doctoring over
drug issues - then it's something we could get behind. Teach us lessons
that are actually of use to us!

For example, a character on "Once and Again" could remark: "We're in our
40s, gorgeous, middle class and we both have flat stomachs. Why are we
whining and acting like our lives are difficult?"

That kind of government interference could actually help people.

The other kind of interference - in case you've missed the TV scandal of
the moment - centers on whether networks are dodging their public service
requirements by taking those just-say-no messages out of commercials and
putting them in the story lines of "ER" and other popular shows. In turn,
the government - which allegedly gets to see the scripts and offer advice -
absolves them of their social duty and the networks can then sell that very
expensive commercial time to some dot-com company for huge profit.

(Remember when parents were worried their children would hear Satanic
messages if they played their pop music backward? Now parents are worried
the government will recruit their kids to be Washington interns if they
watch "The West Wing.")

This latest scandal is disturbing but not so surprising if you know how TV
works. Of course, the average person doesn't - you have better things to
do with your time. So it may be easy to work up a First Amendment snit or
at least some kind of Big Brother objection.

But before you get all vexed about the sanctity of the airwaves, remember
this: Television does not have a soul. It never has. Television is a
for-profit business, and like military vendors and toilet seat makers
before them, it has often struck gold by shaking hands with Uncle Sam.

Let's play a quick, painless numbers game: The government took $1 billion
of your tax dollars and told the broadcast networks, "We want to buy
advertising time." The networks said, "Get in line." The government said,
"Because we could regulate you into the ground - and because the airwaves
are public - we think you should give us back something in return."

A deal was struck. The networks would provide $2 billion in advertising
time for that $1 billion in tax money. It was a two-for-one that pleased
both sides (but probably not you, if you had been asked in advance).

Somewhere along the line, the government's drug czar decided that teens
tune out public service announcements and it might make a bigger impression
if George Clooney, say, or somebody on "Dawson's Creek," waves off a
bong-load of top-shelf pot.

The networks said, "Oh, we do that kind of story all the time." (Which is
true.) So a good many of them didn't have to air public service
announcements and hence, essentially, got your tax money for free.

It was stealing money, not brainwashing. A backroom deal, yes. But a plot
that will lead to government propaganda spewed via "Ally McBeal?" - - no.

The networks may seem dumb, but they know you're smarter than all these
watchdog groups give you credit for. If, for example, some of the
questions on "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" focused on campaign finance
reform - clearly you'd know the fix was in.

Big Brother doctoring scripts and controlling your mind would be a great
story, but the reality is far more dull. It's simply Hollywood selling out
- - which it does every day. Special interest groups of all kinds read
scripts in advance on a regular basis. They "advise." It's business as usual.

Two much more alarming revelations came out Friday. The government giving
the thumbs-up to story lines that show kids why it's bad to be a crack-head
is less dangerous than the following:

First, Peter Roth, president of Warner Bros. Television admitted the studio
was compensated in some manner for product placement and gratuitous
mentions of Pottery Barn in a recent episode of "Friends." Subliminal is
wasn't: The characters mentioned the store name frequently and they
obsessed about a particular table - which just happens to appear in the
latest Pottery Barn catalog you got in the mail.

Second, Donald Vereen, the deputy director at the government's drug czar
office (officially called the White House Office of National Drug Control
Policy, if you're wondering why it's always shortened) came here to the TV
critics mid-season press tour to tout a study that said - surprise -
illicit drug depiction on network television is almost non-existent.

Vereen, and the people who did the study, were proud. The study looked at
168 episodes of 42 top-rated dramas and sitcoms. These included the 20
most popular shows among white, African American and Hispanic teens. That's
the core target in the campaign against drugs. And the study found that
illicit drugs were in only 3 percent of all episodes (great!), tobacco in
19 percent (pretty good!) and alcohol in 71 percent (whoops!).

But nobody seemed at all worried about the alcohol part. Even though
Vereen said illicit drugs kill about 20,000 people in the country, alcohol
- - "many, many times more." Next question.

As you know, those who produce illicit drugs can't advertise on TV. Neither
can tobacco companies. But alcohol - it's a television staple. Don't look
for the networks to partner with the government any time soon, overtly or
covertly, on an anti-drinking campaign. Uncle Sam doesn't buy enough ad
time to compete with beer companies.

Just another lesson in how TV really works.