GOVERNMENT TV SNEAKS INTO HOMES

The astounding thing is that so little outrage has been expressed at how
easily the networks rolled over to the government's programming demands.

The federal government has been using your tax money to offer what it calls
incentives - we'd call them bribes - to get TV network programmers to
insert government-approved anti-drug messages into popular television
programs.

Here's what has been happening, as revealed by the online magazine
Salon.com and then reported by the Associated Press: A 1997 law set up a
program for the government to buy anti-drug TV ads, with the networks
required to offer a free spot for every one the government bought.

Since 1997, however, ad time has become more valuable and the networks
sought an alternative plan.

So the government, in what White House and National Drug Control Policy
Office spokesmen have called a "creative" break-through, offered to give up
some of the free ads it demanded, if the networks could demonstrate that
their regular programming conveyed anti-drug messages.

And - get this - the government in some cases exercises pre-approval of the
show's content.

So government drug warriors got advance looks at tapes or scripts and the
ability to make suggestions. In exchange, Fox received credit for episodes
of "Beverly Hills 90210" and "America's Most Wanted," while WB got credit
for an episode of "Seventh Heaven." NBC hasn't accepted credits under the
program. ABC said it had submitted scripts but hadn't received credits
because it had already broadcast enough commercials. All told, $22 million
worth of credits have been handed out to networks that played ball with the
government.

What's the specific harm, you ask? Aren't drugs a blight on society that
should be stopped at any cost, including a few well-meaning messages from
the government slipped into TV sitcoms?

For one, speech that is free of any kind of government interference is a
fundamental principle in the United States, and this kind of subterfuge is
in some ways more sinister than direct censorship.

When the state owns the media, a situation some countries suffer, at least
people know where the message is coming from and can judge accordingly. But
these shows don't come with a "Warning: Your Government Has Given Us
Financial Incentives to Propagandize You" label.

So the propaganda - usually overly simplistic and often seriously
misleading - slips through without any disclosure to the viewer about who
is behind the content.

The harm to the principle at stake far outweighs any potential health
education benefit to youth or monetary benefit to the networks.

Hollywood should be up in arms. This entire programs, with its underhanded
form of censorship and hidden influence, should be ended immediately.