Search

ARCHIVES
CONTACT US
WORLD NEWS

War on Drugs

In 1997, Congress approved a program that would buy anti-drug ads on television for discounted price. The deal was that each network would match the money that the government spent with an equal amount spent on their very own public service announcements. While this was a good idea and one that was working, it has recently been perverted by the two parties involved.

An arrangement was made between the networks and the White House in which the networks would receive financial credit in exchange for filling their regularly scheduled programming with anti-drug messages. What that means is that an episode of "Beverly Hills 90210" where Donna Martin just says no to "the pot" or an episode of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" where Buffy single-handedly exposes and destroys an underground group of demon-werewolf crack-dealing gypsies would entitle their networks to a monetary credit. While everyone should be involved in the war on drugs (except, of course, for the pot-heads who have permission to stay on the couch), this plan has some problems.

White House officials were getting the opportunity to review scripts before the shows were put in production. While most networks said that they held on strong to their creative control, others changed their scripts after they were not approved. Still, there is no way to prove that the other scripts were not somehow affected by the White House review. The fact that the White House is affecting the main source of entertainment in this country in such a way is rather scary, regardless of how good they may be at spewing fiction.

On Tuesday, some guidelines were set "to eliminate any misunderstandings and prevent any inference of federal intrusion in the creative process," said Barry McCaffrey, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. The guidelines still ask for a match in spending for the ads by the networks. They also still allow networks to receive some financial credit for shows that express anti-drug sentiments. The only real change is that the government will not be allowed to review the shows for the credits until after the shows have aired.

While this is a step in the right direction, it still isn't good enough. Actually, it isn't really that good at all. The only good part about it is that the government recognized a problem with their little arrangement and attempted to remedy it. Of course, the only reason that that happened was because enough people voiced their dissatisfaction with the way things were going, so let's keep at it.

Giving credits for anti-drug messages is only the beginning. What's to stop the government from issuing credits for other messages that they want to beat into the consciousness of the American public? They could give credits to "ER" for producing shows that back the favored health care plan of the month. Or they could give credit to "Touched by an Angel" for supporting the Christian ideal and perpetuating the idea that God exists.

We cannot sit idly by and let this kind of thing happen. I have been under the impression for quite some time that television could not possibly get any worse. I fear that I was sorely mistaken. As bad as shows like "Suddenly Susan" and the aforementioned "Touched by an Angel" are, they can only get worse if supported and guided by the White House.

As hard as Congress tries with their "war on drug" efforts, they always seem to fall a little short. The initial idea was a good one, but the plan to issue credits is an unnecessary perversion. Stick with the basics, and you can't go wrong.

Zack Armstrong is a creative writing junior. He can be reached at editor@wildcat.arizona.edu