Government-monitored television

The big story in the news this week was about the impending merger of two giant companies, America On Line and Time-Warner. While this merger raises questions about the wisdom of ever-larger business interests controlling news reporting organizations, some of which are part of Time-Warner, another story about free expression and free speech also popped up.

The report I heard was that some TV networks were submitting scripts to a government drug education office for approval. The thought was that if the TV shows incorporated an anti-drug message in their plots, they would be excused from running some anti-drug public service announcements, freeing up that high priced time to be sold to advertisers. The program was voluntary, and the purpose certainly was worthy, but the report made me uneasy. During the Nazi era in Germany and under the Soviet regime in the former USSR, the government reviewed and approved movie scripts, radio broadcasts, and later TV shows, with an eye towards getting out what they viewed as a good message. These messages were regularly incorporated into work that appeared to be only entertainment or artistic.

The issue with this report about government approval of TV scripts isn't the intention of the script approval. Certainly, fighting drug abuse is an unquestioned good. The problem lies in the precedent of government approval of creative or entertainment work from the private sector, and the presentation of that approved work without knowledge of the audience. My discomfort might seem like an overreaction to this development, but what if the approach works especially well? Perhaps another message will be incorporated. Maybe this will also be a topic that everyone agrees to be a good thing, or maybe it will be something that fewer people agree on. It's only a small step to apply the same good effect to movies as well. The problem with this action is not the one-time effect, but the temptation to take another step.

There is another issue as well. In the past of this country, voluntary efforts to regulate the content of artistic work has resulted in a chilling effect, as any fan of 1950s comic books knows. For those unfamiliar with this piece of history, during the 1940s and 1950s there were a lot of comic books, such as "True Crime," precursors to graphic novels and in the manner of pulp fiction, aimed at an adult market. These magazines provided an open outlet for new novelists and illustrators. Some of the work was startlingly original, and a number of these writers went on to do serious work. What's more, these works provided inspiration and fired the imaginations of many who grew up to be writers and filmmakers (including director Steven Spielberg). When these works came under voluntary regulation, this art form vanished. The program was voluntary and had the best intentions (reducing youth exposure to violence), but it had unintended consequences on artistic expression.

So, are TV shows art? Probably not, but the precedent that is set is two-fold: the incorporation of a government-approved message in an entertainment form, and the idea that government should review entertainment for the public good. If TV shows want to, on their own, express an anti-drug message, that is an admirable thing. But government approval of such a message is a different thing, and sets us on the edge of that slippery slope.

-Catherine Marquis-Homeyer