TV SCANDAL DU JOUR JUST HOLLYWOOD SELLING OUT

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.

Tim Goodman can be reached by e-mail (goodman@examiner.com)