ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, April 3, 1997 TAG: 9704030057
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-12 EDITION: METRO
Expanding liquor ads to TV and radio could be harmful. But President Clinton should use persuasion, not regulation.
IN CRITICIZING liquor-industry plans to end its voluntary ban on radio and TV advertising, President Clinton raises legitimate concerns about the impact of alcohol on children and adolescents.
He should bring moral suasion to bear on distillers, who have tacitly acknowledged for 50 years that 30-second spots linking liquor consumption to happiness might encourage underage drinking and alcohol abuse.
But accompanying that criticism with a request for a Federal Communications Commission study introduces the gloomy prospect of an eventual government-imposed ban on such advertising. Yet as he contemplates such government nannyism, the president declines even to chide beer and wine makers.
There are a couple of problems with his strategy.
First, by making a distinction between advertising liquor (taboo) and beer (no problem, dude), Clinton is perpetuating a misperception that the alcohol in beer somehow is more benign than the alcohol in hard liquor.
Second, by insisting on this distinction, the president is undercutting his own tenuously held moral high ground. How moved should distillers be when he has nothing to say about the nonstop fun enjoyed by the beautiful people inhabiting the beaches and ski slopes of brewski fantasyland?
Rather than seeking tighter regulation of hard liquor only, a more effective response to liquor ads would be more ads - educating young people about the dangers when these products are used irresponsibly.
LENGTH: Short : 37 linesby CNB