DATE: Monday, April 7, 1997                 TAG: 9704050015

SECTION: LOCAL                   PAGE: B9   EDITION: FINAL 

TYPE: OPINION 

SOURCE: ANN SJOERDSMA

                                            LENGTH:   88 lines

TARGETING TV ADS FOR LIQUOR, BUT NOT BEER, A "SKUNKY" IDEA

After his attack last week on ``hard''-liquor TV advertising, I have to wonder how much beer President Clinton is putting away. Or how much money Anheuser-Busch or Miller has donated to the Democratic National Committee. Or whether Bill's tight with NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue.

The president warned the distilled-spirits industry, which, until last November, officially observed for 48 years a voluntary ban on TV advertising, about corrupting our youth. Seagram Co. Ltd. broke the ban in June with Crown Royal whiskey ads on independent TV stations in Texas and Boston.

``Liquor ads on television,'' Clinton said, ``would provide a message of encouragement to drink that young people simply don't need. Nothing good can come of it.''

Of course, Clinton could say the same about beer and wine TV advertising, but he didn't. Beer, not gin, bourbon or Scotch, is the No. 1 alcoholic beverage among young people. Especially minors. Was this an ``oversight''? Will Clinton get around to it?

Call me cynical, but I have to believe bottom-line thinking swayed this latest bit of ``mom and pop'' opportunism. If beer ads alone were bounced from TV - Anheuser-Busch pays $400,000 per minute on NFL Sundays - an endless parade of network and sports heavyweights would come calling on the White House.

But who's going to squawk about a governmental rebuke of the financially beleaguered, and roundly derided, liquor industry?

Clinton asked the Federal Communications Commission to look into a ban of liquor advertising on TV, an arguably unconstitutional action. (``Commercial speech'' enjoys limited First Amendment protection.) The president has made a political career out of feel-good quick fixes ``for the family'' that don't work.

But this time he got more than he bargained for. Presumed ally Mothers Against Drunk Driving criticized Clinton for not going far enough. MADD singled out beer ads.

I can think of nothing more toxic to the human mind than the omnipresent TV beer commercial. It's a toss-up for me on which is more dangerous to society: the ``dumb-down'' beer ads that plague TV sportscasts and target a captive young-male audience, or a tanked-up 18-year-old with a set of car keys.

But first, some reasoning. Studies show that parents' drinking habits and peer pressure exert far greater influence on teen-agers' alcohol use than TV advertising. But assuming that TV does play some undefined cultural role, why stop with the ads? Why not get all alcohol off television? Ban liquor, beer and wine commercials, scenes of glamorous TV characters sipping highballs, crowd shots of fun-loving fans throwing back brews at the ballpark, whatever.

Better yet, why not seize all televisions from households with children? Reductio ad absurdum. Where does it end?

And second, some facts.

(1) Alcohol is alcohol. (Or more precisely, ethyl alcohol, or ethanol.) On this, even the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS) and MADD can agree.

Because of alcohol-content percentages, hard liquor is perceived as being more damaging, especially more intoxicating, than either wine or beer. An ``80-proof'' fifth of distilled spirits, such as gin, contains 40 percent alcohol; a bottle of wine, from 12 percent to 14 percent; and a can of beer, about 5 percent.

But, as the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence explains, ``Beer, wine and liquor have the same effect if a person drinks them in a standard-size serving and at the same rate.'' A cocktail with 1 1/2 ounces of 80-proof spirits has the same alcohol content as five ounces of wine or 12 ounces of beer. The amount a person drinks is the key.

(2) Business is business.

DISCUS, whose members produce and market distilled spirits, would like a level advertising playing field. It played nice, keeping liquor ads off both radio (since 1936) and TV, while the beer and wine industries seized a competitive advantage. Beer now permeates sports. (What's the ``message'' in that?)

From 1980 to 1995, sales of distilled spirits fell 32 percent. With the new communications, advertisers can fragment audiences and target adults. Why shouldn't DISCUS, which has shown social responsibility, reap some benefit?

I believe in self-governance. When ``skunky beer'' ads invade my football games, I press the mute button. Life's too short.

TV networks can do the same, if they choose. The major ones have all high-mindedly vowed not to carry liquor ads - for now - but drop beer commercials? That'll be the day.

If federal TV regulators insist on ``protecting'' the family, the least they can do is play fair. Cast a discouraging eye over all alcohol, not just the hard stuff.

But the bottom line should be moderation. In political control and in personal habit. MEMO: Ann G. Sjoerdsma, an attorney, is an editorial columnist and book

editor for The Virginian-Pilot.

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu