>From: "Peter McWilliams" >Subject: McMedia >Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 05:05:02 -0800 >X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 >X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 > >Pubdate: October 1999 >Source: The Freeman (US) >Copyright: 1999 The Foundation for Economic Education >Contact: freeman@fee.org >Fax: (914) 591-8910 >Address: 30 South Broadway, Irvington, NY 10533 >Website: http://www.fee.org >Author: Paul Armentano >Note: Paul Armentano is the publications director for The NORML Foundation, >a Washington, D.C.-based research and legal foundation that examines drug >policies. > >BOUGHT AND SOLD: DRUG WARRIORS AND THE MEDIA > >Americans pride themselves on their independent press. >Yet some media outlets and networks are compromising their autonomy >and objectivity by welcoming the federal government as a major paying >advertiser. This alarming union is the latest outgrowth of the "war on >drugs," and the launch of a new $775 million White House campaign to >promote its objectives through television, radio, and print >advertising. The message to media moguls is simple: Promote the >continuation of the drug war in advertisements, editorial content, and >features, and we, as federal officials, will reimburse you by spending >millions of taxpayer dollars for ads. The better government mouthpiece >you are the more advertising space we will buy. > >Not surprisingly,America's print and television media hierarchy are lining >up for a slice of the pie. Last fall, the board of directors of the Magazine >Publishers of America announced their participation in the federal >crusade, dubbed the "National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign," by >agreeing to run "compelling ads in their magazines and providing >editorial support for their audiences." > >Their decision cameimmediately after a meeting with White House drug czar >Barry McCaffrey, who urged the industry to begin a "nationwide anti-drug >publishing strategy." McCaffrey found the MPA more than willing. "[We] >accept the challenge presented to the magazine industry by the General >[Barry McCaffrey] to join with the Ad Council, the Partnership for a >Drug-Free America, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy >[ONDCP]," a spokesperson for the MPA board of directors announced >following the drug czar's visit. "The MPA will use its best efforts to >coordinate member participation in a national magazine 'roadblock' . . >. to raise the level of awareness of the campaign among parents and >kids." > >Disturbing Implications The implications of the publishing industry's >new alliance with the federal government are disturbing. Michael Hoyt, >senior editor for the Columbia Journalism Review, warns that the >industry's involvement sacrifices credibility and journalistic >integrity. "I don't think that the MPA should be urging members to >provide editorial support for anything at all," he says. "And it >doesn't matter how worthy they think the cause is. That's particularly >true where there can be a perceived conflict of interest, such as >urging that support in return for tax dollars." Indeed, federal >officials made it clear that the MPA's portion of the White House's >war chest hinged on its willingness to espouse the government's party >line. "We want . . . the magazine industry to be a critical player in >this effort," McCaffrey told the publishing heads. "However, . . . we >have yet to determine exactly how much of the roughly $775 million ad >dollars will go to magazines . . . . That proportion depends on your >response. > >If you deliver the commitment of your industry, we will provide the >[financial] resources necessary to deliver the message on your pages." >As expected, the drug czar's bribe achieved the desired union. >Unfortunately, this is not the first time the media have enlisted in >this governmental campaign. > >Previously, the National Association of Broadcasters announced that it >would cooperate with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services >and the advertising conglomerate Partnership for a Drug-Free America >to launch a nationwide television campaign demonizing marijuana's >alleged dangers. > >The ABC television network also broadcast a month-long federally >backed anti-drug media blitz two years ago that raised eyebrows among >many media critics. "All of us can benefit from an honest message >about the risks of substance abuse, but it must be credible," wrote >national columnist Robert Scheer, who called the earlier >ABC/Partnership for a Drug-Free America effort "a propaganda >campaign." "The government-sanctioned anti-drug message, inserted by >corporate fiat into all [ABC] programming, including news, criticizes >only those vices that are not legally profitable, while the network's >advertising continues to glorify those that are. Surely, those sales >people at ABC know that a warning that is transparently dishonest is >worse than useless." Apparently not. Today, the White House >drug-control office is one of ABC's best-paying clients. > >ABC accepted over $14 million in paid ads from the ONDCP in the first >five months of the federal advertising campaign, more than twice as >much as any other network. ABC also combined efforts with Disney >Online to establish the drug propaganda Web site, Freevibe.com, which >targets visitors with baseless drug "facts" like: "Pot turns people >into potheads." This statement, like most others appearing on this and >other government-influenced sites, conveniently ignores the science >exonerating marijuana of such "reefer madness" inspired allegations. >For example, visitors will find no mention of a May 1999 John Hopkins >University cognition study, the first ever to investigate the >long-term effects of marijuana on mental function in a large >epidemiological sample, that found "no significant differences in >cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and nonusers of >cannabis." The White House drug control office spent an additional >$5.5 million on Fox, $1.8 million on NBC, $600,000 on CBS, and >$800,000 on the WB Network, according to USA Today columnist Melanie >Wells. In return, the major networks "donated" $24.4 million of free >air time to promote the feds' political antidrug agenda. > >This public-private partnership makes the White House campaign one of >the top 15 single-brand campaigns in the nation, even outspending (in >unadjusted dollars) the public service campaign run during World War >II in support of the war effort. Tom Haines, chairman of the >drug-policy alternatives group Partnership for Responsible Drug >Information, denounces the emerging alliance among the government and >media as a threat to America's free press. "We are seeing the >unification of the business end of the media community and the >government for an advocacy campaign where only one point of view is >coming across," he says. "If this were happening in any other country, >it would be denounced as propaganda." > >Shifting Roles Also critical is New York Times writer Frank Rich, one >of the few columnists to question the shifting roles of the government >and the media. > >This new ad campaign "may introduce a new economic model to the long >and tortured history of the drug war," he wrote in a syndicated column. >"Where we once had companies that laundered drug money, we now have >corporations synergizing anti-drug money." > >One thing is for certain, as long as there are dollars to go around, expect >the networks and much of the Fourth Estate to keep buying. "One of the most >surprising results we've seen has been the tremendous response by the media >and entertainment industry," Alan Levitt, who oversees advertising for the >ONDCP, said in a recent interview. "They're willing to listen to what we're >saying . . . and they [are] willing to change storylines." >Such may have been the case last spring when the NBC show "Hang Time" aired >an ONDCP-friendly episode regarding marijuana. "When kids and teens across >the nation tuned into the popular TV show, they saw a group of high >schoolers catch their friends smoking marijuana, witnessed the negative >consequences of drug use, and saw some real friends convince their pal to >get help," the drug czar's office bragged after NBC aired the show, >declaring the network had "adopted" the prevention theme in their >broadcasts. Other NBC shows followed suit, including "One World," "City >Guys," and "Saved by the Bell: The New Class," each emphasizing the >"negative consequences" of drug use. The network and the White House also >combined efforts to produce and distribute "study guide" pamphlets to public >high-school students. > >Teachers were encouraged to use the materials as a basis for >initiating drug "education" classroom discussions. "The programming >and surrounding activities were made possible by a unique >collaboration among the ONDCP [and] NBC television . . . arising from >the powerful messages of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign," >the White House summarized. Is the campaign really propaganda rather >than good science? > >The federal government's marijuana policy has long been based on >propaganda. Government witnesses advocated passage of America's first >prohibitive federal marijuana law in 1937 by telling Congress that >marijuana consumption inevitably causes violence, insanity, and death >among users. In different eras, various other myths have gained >prominence (marijuana kills brain cells, marijuana causes >amotivational syndrome, marijuana harms sexual maturation and >reproduction, and so on), but few have been abandoned. Indeed, many of >the reefer madness" tales that were used today to generate support for >early anti-marijuana laws continue to appear in the government's media >campaign and bureaucratic reports today, despite scientific studies >demonstrating the contrary. > >For example, just one month after the May 1999 National Academy of >Sciences Institute of Medicine report concluded that marijuana >withdrawal symptoms evidenced in humans are "mild and subtle," the >federal National Institute on Drug Abuse said that marijuana smokers >who abstain from the drug become aggressive. Assertions like those >form the backbone of the federal anti-drug campaign, while >non-government studies that fail to find deleterious or toxic effects >from marijuana and other drugs are ignored. The unholy >taxpayer-financed alliance arising among federal drug warriors and the >media threatens to usher an unparalleled campaign of government >propaganda into our homes, lives, and public schools. > >In addition, by waving taxpayer dollars, federal officials are >presenting many within the Fourth Estate with a conflict of interest >that threatens not only their credibility and objectivity, but also >their ability to maintain a proper role as a watchdog over big >government and its policies. > >How likely is the media to question the drug-war party line when the >warriors are some of their biggest advertisers? The feds are spending >$775 million of your hard-earned dollars to find out. > > >================================================================ > >This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . >To unsubscribe, E-mail to: