FEDS SHOULDN'T BE TV WRITERS

A troubling revelation last week again raised the issue about the proper
role of government in protecting people from themselves.

Out of Washington, D.C., comes the word that the White House in quiet
collaboration with the major television networks reviewed the scripts of
several popular shows and made suggestions to help convey an aggressively
anti-drug message.

It’s troubling to hear that network television is in some kind of
partnership with the government to convey a message to the public,
regardless of how valid the message or how innocent the intent. Government
officials apparently made suggestions on the scripts of such shows as "ER,"
"Chicago Hope" and "Beverly Hills 90210" to encourage the shows to convey a
more anti-drug message.

In exchange for their cooperation the networks were freed from obligations
to provide $22 million in public service advertising over the past two
years, which allowed them to sell that time to advertisers.

Alan Levitt, who runs the program in the White House drug czar’s office,
said his office reviews television scripts "to see if they’re on strategy
or not" by portraying youth drug use in a negative light. If so, the
networks are given credits that enable them to sell more air time to
commercial advertisers rather than donate it for anti-drug and other
messages.

So this is what we’ve come to. The masses are so helpless and families are
so dysfunctional that big brother has to OK our TV scripts. What’s ironic
is that the media usually rails against government censorship, but
apparently if there’s money to be made, it’s OK to sell your soul and the
First Amendment down the river.

The media is always the first whipping boy every time there’s a school
shooting or some other outrageous crime committed by a teen-ager. Sex,
violence and drug use on TV and in the movies, as well as "gangsta rap"
music and video games simulating violence are blamed for undermining
parents’ efforts to raise their kids properly.

It’s hard to argue government has no role to play in at least having some
rules over what can be transmitted over the public airwaves. Some standards
have to exist, and it’s not unreasonable for government to step in if some
programs go too far. And with the explosion of the Internet it’s proper for
government to try to educate adults on its potential pitfalls, especially
because their children often are much more savvy to what is being offered
up in cyberspace.

But it’s a big leap for government to actually become a partner in writing
scripts, and using financial incentives to boot. This is a dangerously
slippery slope. What’s next, the White House partnering with Tom Brokaw and
Peter Jennings to screen news content? Or maybe a promise to get more money
to Public Broadcasting or National Public Radio in exchange for prior
review of content?

This is crazy. Every time people demand the government cut spending, the
first suggestions are to weaken our defense, close national parks or some
other ploy lawmakers or bureaucrats know will cause a public uproar.

To save money, why not just disband the arm of the drug czar’s office that
gets in bed (sorry) with the TV networks. Not only would it save money, but
it would put control of what programs succeed back where it belongs -- on
parents holding the on-off switch to the remote.

Those who support government getting more involved in promoting positive
behaviors base their argument on the fact that negative behaviors such as
drug abuse, casual sex, divorce, gun violence, etc., costs society in many
ways.

True enough. But turning every aspect of our lives, from what we can eat to
what we can watch, over to the government makes us servants of that
government. At what point in this scenario do we change the name of the
White House to the Kremlin?