Big Networks

December 29, 2000 3:16 PM

Big Networks get a slap on the wrist for letting the White House pay for anti-drug scripts.
posted by capt.crackpipe (16 comments total)

Wait, wait, I thought it was the corporations who were buying the government. I'm all confuzzed now.

If anyone deserves to be spanked, it's the White House officials who thought up this stunt. But of course, they're on their way out anyway, and I doubt there was anything criminal about what they did.
posted by kindall at 4:06 PM on December 29, 2000

Big corporations are the government.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 4:23 PM on December 29, 2000

What's so stupid is the way it was done under the table. If they had just gone above-board and put a card up during the credits something like "This anti-drug message brought to you by the White House Drug Office", most people wouldn't have blinked.
posted by dhartung at 4:36 PM on December 29, 2000

I would have blinked.

That would say to me: "This message brought to you by the government in hopes that you will change your anti-social behavior and start being a productive citizen."

Sounds like Orwell was just off by a few decades.
posted by y6y6y6 at 5:24 PM on December 29, 2000

What exactly is wrong with a government that *hopes* you aren't being anti-social and non-productive? I don't see anything Orwellian in that.
posted by MrBaliHai at 5:35 PM on December 29, 2000

What makes you think drug users are anti-social and non-productive? Sounds like you’re towing somebody’s line.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 6:51 PM on December 29, 2000

Oh come on capt.

anti-social, not really but non-productive, too fucking right

As bill says, I coud go to work for eight hours...
posted by fullerine at 3:06 AM on December 30, 2000

What makes you think that drug users are social and productive, capt.? Sounds like you're towing somebody's line.
posted by Dreama at 9:46 AM on December 30, 2000

y6, check out some arcade video games once in a while. There's an antidrug message with an FBI logo on some of them.
posted by dhartung at 11:42 AM on December 30, 2000

dhartung, "winners don't use drugs."

I didn't attribute any stereotype to them. In my experience, people who aren't addicts and use drugs are rather productive (usually in creative or people-oriented jobs) and rather social.

I think the free speech issue illustrated in this article is more important than the drug issue. We all have the right to free speech, and the right to receive free speech, but does the Government? Should the institution which is supposed to reflect the people it represents have a stance on social issues? How could we trust the Government to reprimand the corporations it used to deceive the public?

Answer to the last: We can't, because the reprimand didn't sting.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 2:41 PM on December 30, 2000

um, first, may I please point out that the correct phrase is "toeing the line"? I'm just sayin'.
posted by acridrabbit at 8:57 PM on December 30, 2000

I dunno - I think my easy access to vast quantities of street-legal caffeine is the only thing keeping me from a non-productive lifestyle most mornings....

Oh wait, I forgot: caffeine "doesn't count" as a drug. My bad. Never mind.
posted by youhas at 9:50 PM on December 30, 2000

This is like going back to the days of one company sponsoring a TV show where you had to be sure not to say anything controversial so you got their money. Except instead of a company, you have the government, which is worse. aagh...
posted by dagnyscott at 11:53 AM on December 31, 2000

There is no "government." There is a collection of governmental organizations that operate in parallel, but there isn't enough organization for a gov't conspiracy stretching from the courts to the presidency.
posted by Ptrin at 1:13 PM on December 31, 2000

thanks acid.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 3:06 PM on December 31, 2000

You drink coffee, you are a drug user. You take aspirin, you are a drug user.
posted by Zool at 6:24 PM on January 2, 2001