OUR OPINION; WE DON'T WANT GTV THERE MUST BE A FIREWELL PREVENTING THE GOVERNMENT FROM PLAYING A DIRECT ROLE IN DECIDING THE CONTENT OF TELEVISION.

No sane person would object to prime-time television - with all its reliance for ratings on sleazy sex and gratuitous violence - inserting some story lines portraying the scourge of drug abuse.

Unless, of course, the networks are being paid by the federal government to do it and submitting their scripts and footage to the White House anti-drug czars for prebroadcast review.

Shockingly, that's exactly what happened in about 100 cases since Congress appropriated $1 billion for anti-drug advertisements with the proviso that media, mainly television, give another $1 billion in free anti-drug advertising. What evolved from that was an insidious practice that only came to light because of Salon.com, an online magazine, had a reporter spend six months investigating the White House's anti-drug program.

The White House now acknowledges giving back some advertising time to the networks in exchange for TV shows - including such popular shows as ``ER'' and ``Chicago Hope'' - writing in anti-drug plots.

In the case of two shows on the WB network, scripts were allegedly changed based on suggestions by the government's drug experts.

And what if the message wasn't just about the dangers of drug abuse?

What if a White House under different leadership paid networks to run messages hammering tree-huggers or anti-smokers or illegal immigrants or the homeless or nonconformists or . . . you?

There must be a firewall preventing the government from playing a direct role in deciding the content of the press, movies, TV shows, and other informational and entertainment media.

That's a basic principle of American life. And this is a blatant example of good intentions run amok.

Top officials of the government and the networks should stop trying to defend the indefensible, admit they made a mistake and repudiate the use of this kind of tactic once and for all time.