>From: "Peter McWilliams" >Subject: Major embarassment for McCaffrey! >Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:21:26 -0800 >X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 >X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 > > > >Major embarassment for McCaffrey! >Major victory for creative freedom! > >FRONT PAGE of the LA Times >(one of the most pro-Drug War papers in the country) >--January 14, 2000 > >----------- > >White House Tie to Anti-Drug TV Scripts Criticized > > >By BRIAN LOWRY, Times Staff Writer > > > The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy is under fire >for a controversial strategy said to have financially rewarded television >networks for incorporating anti-drug messages into such shows as "ER" and >"Chicago Hope." > The unorthodox arrangement, detailed in the online news service Salon, >has raised awkward questions about whether broadcasters changed story lines >in an effort to spare themselves from allocating valuable air time to free >public-service spots. > Both network representatives and the drug-control policy office deny >that the incentives played any direct role in influencing program content. > Donald Vereen, deputy director of the drug-control policy office, said >the goal was to help and encourage networks to join in the anti-drug >education effort, not to interfere with the creative process. > That kind of interference "has never been there between the creative >community in Hollywood and the federal government," he said. "We aren't in a >position to dictate anything." > The networks also issued denials, with NBC's executive vice president >of broadcast standards, Rosalyn Weinman, saying in a statement that the >network "never ceded control to the ONDCP or any department of the >government. At no time did NBC turn over scripts for approval from the >ONDCP." > Even if the direct influence of the relationship was minimal, as >network and White House officials suggest, the story's timing represented a >major embarrassment to the White House anti-drug office. Officials planned >to release results today of a study that concludes television generally does >a far better job than movies and music when it comes to responsible >depictions of drug, tobacco and alcohol use--seemingly endorsing the value >of the White House office's own work. > Broadcasters are required, under a 1997 law, to donate public service >time commensurate with the amount bought by the White House office. However, >networks can achieve credit toward those matching spots based on anti-drug >messages within programs. That time could then be sold to advertisers, with >each 30-second commercial in a top-rated show such as "ER" worth more than >$500,000. > The drug-control office and some networks acknowledged that scripts >were at times reviewed in advance. Moreover, networks claimed more than $20 >million in credit, against their matching obligations, for programs carrying >anti-drug themes, including NBC's redemption of over $1 million, according >to Salon, for a drug-use plot on "ER." > Network representatives acknowledge scripts and videotapes were >occasionally sent to the drug-control office but say the government in no >way exercised veto power over their content. > Television industry officials point out that anti-drug efforts have >been underway since long before the office initiated its push under the >current White House drug czar, retired Army Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey. > Academy of Television Arts & Sciences Chairman Meryl Marshall said >anti-drug awareness has been elevated in TV circles since the mid-1980s, >when First Lady Nancy Reagan made drugs a national issue. Grant Tinker, then >the chairman of NBC, was instrumental in establishing strong guidelines at >that time. > "The leadership that started then has pretty much stayed intact in >regard to the drug issue," she said. "It's become socially unacceptable >among creative people to present drugs in a glamorous way." > Various organizations, such as the nonprofit Entertainment Industries >Council, have spent years seeking to inform TV producers about such matters, >offering resources to help programs explore the subject. Similar efforts >have involved issues ranging from wearing seat belts to racial tolerance. > Even so, such explanations did little to mollify media critics, who >contend broadcasters abandoned their independence by making concessions to >government aims in exchange for cash incentives. > Robert Corn-Revere, a former Federal Communications Commission chief >counsel, told Salon the campaign is "pretty insidious. Government >surreptitiously planting anti-drug messages using the power of the purse >raises red flags. Why is there no disclosure to the American public?" > A White House spokesman defended the strategy, maintaining the goal was >simply to facilitate getting positive messages across to children and >teenagers. Some researchers have pointed out that the efficacy of public >service advertisements is undermined when contradicted by the TV programs >airing adjacent to them, a finding that the office has seized as a rationale >for reaching out to the networks. > "When the message is embedded in [programming], it has a much more >valuable 'oomph,' " Vereen said. "The message has to get deeper than a >30-second or a 60-second spot." > The office controls a $1-billion media budget, allocated over five >years. About two-thirds of its expenditures go toward the purchase of >advertising, with the rest earmarked to the media campaign. > > > > >================================================================ > >This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . >To unsubscribe, E-mail to: