TV SELLS OUT TO BIG BROTHER

Eyebrows are being raised - and with some justification - over last
week's disclosure of a little-known, voluntary arrangement between
White House drug policy officials and television networks, in which
anti-drug messages are being incorporated into TV scripts.

The concern seems not to be so much with the details of this
particular case - the government using a medium of popular culture to
convey a message that has almost universal support - but with the
principles being violated.

For one thing, there has been almost no effort by either side to
inform the public about the policy, which essentially gives networks
the option of incorporating anti-drug messages into their shows as an
alternative to airing government public service announcements (e.g.
"This is your brain on drugs"). The switch has helped networks enhance
their profits, because it has enabled them to sell ad slots to paying
customers that they would have had to donate to the government (under
a 1997 law).

That the government may be better able to spread its message subtly,
via shows like NBC's "ER" and Fox's "Beverly Hills 90210," than by
using the standard propaganda tools, doesn't justify the practice.
It's still propaganda, and even though it's only voluntary - the
networks don't have to submit any scripts and can reject any
recommended changes - it's a form of influence/censorship that can't
help but raise First Amendment concerns.

What will happen if the government decides there's some other social
policy it wants to promote - one not quite as universally accepted as
"just say no"?

Or, what if it turns to other media for similar treatment? For good
reason, Americans tend not to take television "entertainment" too
seriously; but if government thought police began infiltrating our
cinema, magazines and newspapers, it would be far more troubling.

And once you get started, it's harder to draw a line - regarding
issues or media. So better that the government not attempt this kind
of intervention at all.