>From: "Peter McWilliams" >Subject: SKIP THE 1ST AMENDMENT, JUST GIVE 'EM THEIR PROFITS >Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 18:18:15 -0800 >X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 >X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 > >Pubdate: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 >Source: Los Angeles Times (CA) >Copyright: 2000 Los Angeles Times >Contact: letters@latimes.com >Address: Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA 90053 >Fax: (213) 237-4712 >Website: http://www.latimes.com/ >Forum: http://www.latimes.com/home/discuss/ >Author: Robert Scheer > >SKIP THE 1ST AMENDMENT, JUST GIVE 'EM THEIR PROFITS >Media: Look At Bottom Line To See Why Tv Networks Let The Nation's Drug >Czar Play Critic. > >The admission that White House drug czar Barry McCaffery reviewed and >influenced scripts written for prime-time television represents one of >the boldest government peacetime intrusions into a free media in U.S. >history. Shocking, but then again, the drug czar acts as if our basic >freedoms may be sacrificed to win the drug war. > >Most disturbing is that this secret arrangement was honored by all the >television networks. Many executives, producers and writers were in on >the scandal involving more than a hundred TV episodes, yet no one blew >the whistle until the online magazine Salon reported this egregious >violation of the spirit of the 1st Amendment last week. > >While network executives are quick to invoke the 1st Amendment's >guarantee of a free press if it comes to preserving their right to >exploit the extremes of sex and violence for ratings' profits, they >seem all too eager to surrender that protection if it enhances their >bottom line. > >That's the real issue in this scandal. The networks meekly submitted >scripts for the drug czar's approval in order to be released from the >obligation to run public interest advertisements at reduced rates, and >instead be able to sell that time for greater profit. They sacrificed >artistic integrity in order to garner what has been estimated at $20 >million in increased advertising revenue. > >In the midst of merger mania involving the broadcast industry, the >drive to improve the bottom line becomes all-compelling, and the fact >that no one from the writers and producers on "ER" or "The Cosby Show" >up to the top network executives dared to publicly criticize this >practice suggests that the corruption is widespread. Clearly these >people have no respect for the rights of viewers to know when >government propaganda has been mixed into programs they are watching. > >More troubling is the failure of the network's news programs to >uncover and report on this story. Or are they too blinded by their >parent companies' grasp for profit? > >As for the government, which is supposed to protect our freedoms, the >official drug war propagandists blithely insist on their right to save >us from ourselves. "I guess we plead guilty to using every lawful >means of saving America's children," said Bob Weiner, a drug office >spokesman. His defense is that his office only makes suggestions, and >he proudly boasts that they do not engage in outright prior >censorship, which is clearly unconstitutional. > >But at the very least, if we are getting government propaganda mixed >in with our entertainment or news programs, shouldn't it be clearly >labeled as such? That's what newspapers call the difference between >advertorial and news copy, and when they cross that line, they are >severely criticized. But the insertion of the drug czar's propaganda >into entertainment programming is a far more egregious violation of >the spirit of a free press because it involves government, rather than >private industry, manipulation of the media. > >The protections of the 1st Amendment are directed at >government--"Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of the >press." This secret government manipulation of the media was paid for >by Congress. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jim Kolbe >(R-Ariz.) defended provision of funds for this concealed official >propaganda on the grounds that it is efficient, which deception often >is. "Certainly some questions have been raised," he said. "But we want >to get the message out to young people." Then do so honestly and say >that this is a government-sponsored message. Don't sneak it into >ordinary program content, which is the practice of totalitarian >governments. > >The drug warriors in the White House are obsessed with saving us from >ourselves even at the expense of our most precious freedoms. They >alone know the truth, and it will set us free. But as with an earlier >campaign to prohibit alcohol sales, their war ends up being >counterproductive and destroying our freedoms. > >That is the dark side of the war on drugs: The hypocrisy and >shallowness of its message equates all illegally used drugs but >soft-pedals alcohol, which is a staple of television advertising. The >war fills our jails with black youth for crack cocaine possession >while going easy on suburban whites who prefer powdered cocaine. As a >result, we have the largest jail population in the world filled with >nonviolent prisoners who have hurt only themselves. > >Will a television industry that seeks the approval of the drug czar in >order to be rewarded with more advertising revenue tell this other >side of the drug story? Will it report the truth about medical >marijuana, which the government doesn't want you to hear? It hasn't >done much of that. Now we know why. > > > >================================================================ > >This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . >To unsubscribe, E-mail to: