>From: "Peter McWilliams" <peter@mcwilliams.com>
>Subject: Still lots more McMeltdown and McDenial
>Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 18:44:06 -0800
>X-Mozilla-Status: 8001
>X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
>
>And the good news just keeps on a-coming. It's making humor columns and is
>frowned on by a Washington Post editorial (although it agrees with the
>message).
>
>Enjoy,
>
>Peter
>
>
>Pubdate: Sat, 15 Jan 2000
>Source: Washington Post (DC)
>Section: Rough Draft
>Copyright: 2000 The Washington Post Company
>Address: 1150 15th Street Northwest, Washington, DC 20071
>Feedback: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm
>Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
>Author: Joel Achenbach, Washington Post Staff Writer
>Related: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n045/a01.html
>See: The Salon article at: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n043.a09.html
>
>HOLLYWOOD'S COMMANDER IN CHIEF
>
>Hey Kids, Don't Do Drugs. (Now Where's My Money?)
>
>Suckers that we are, we always believed that Hollywood had secret influence
>on the White House. We knew that the president routinely called Steven
>Spielberg for advice. We knew that movie stars could show up at the White
>House gate and gain entrance simply by flashing their gleaming
>million-dollar teeth. Jack Valenti, Alec Baldwin, Ron Silver, Warren Beatty
>- they were as omnipresent at state dinners as the Secret Service.
>
>Now we know we had the whole thing backward. The Hollywood "influence" was
>just the smoke screen. The hideous truth: The White House runs the
>entertainment industry.
>
>TV shows. Movies. The hairstyles and cosmetic surgery options of the stars.
>All this comes straight out of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. That tough,
>no-nonsense, always-savvy president played by Martin Sheen on "The West
>Wing" is not inspired by President Clinton - he's written by him.
>
>Slap me if I imagined this: A movie called "Air Force One" has terrorists
>taking over the president's plane - only to be thwarted by the
>tough-as-nails, Ramboesque president himself. Clearly, a script straight
>from the Oval Office.
>
>We also are forced to recall the movie "The American President." The
>president is a widower, and so he gets to date around. Do you see a certain
>someone's fingerprints all over that one?
>
>Now we know what the White House staff has been doing for the past seven
>years, other than answering subpoenas. Who has time to work on campaign
>finance reform when you're under the gun to finish a script for "The Drew
>Carey Show"? Could you have anticipated the Kosovo invasion if you were
>also working out the syndication rights for "Ally McBeal"?
>
>The official story so far is that this is just an attempt to get anti-drug
>messages on the airwaves. Salon, the online magazine, disclosed this week
>that the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy has been
>reviewing scripts and advance footage of such TV shows as "ER" and "Cosby."
>The networks were given financial incentives worth millions of dollars to
>put anti-drug messages in their shows.
>
>But you know that's just the start of it. This White House is shameless in
>its deal-making and spin-doctoring. It understands that everything has a
>price--a night in the Lincoln Bedroom, coffee with the president, the
>dialogue in "Touched by an Angel." Almost certainly it has offered
>Hollywood an entire menu of plot devices, character developments and
>scripted messages, each with its own financial incentive:
>
>* $1,000: Reference to first lady as "beautiful and incredibly senatorial."
>
>* $2,000: Allusion to President Clinton's "intelligence, charm and
>pantherish animal vigor."
>
>* $3,000: On "NYPD Blue," Andy Sipowicz goes through trailer park with a
>$10 bill and turns up someone named "Paula Jones."
>
>* $4,000: Minor character named "Mr. Gore" discovers way to use Internet to
>repair Antarctic ozone hole.
>
>* $5,000: On new version of "Perry Mason," a character named "Mr. Starr"
>always loses to Mr. Mason.
>
>* $10,000: "Mr. Starr" is held in contempt of court and is thrown into "Oz"
>prison.
>
>* $30,000: Very bad, hard-to-watch things happen to "Mr. Starr" in "Oz"
>prison and he confesses under duress that he is part of a "vast right-wing
>conspiracy."
>
>* $50,000: On "The X-Files," aliens make illegal campaign contributions to
>the Republican National Committee.
>
>* $100,000: Lunatic politician named "Speaker Gingrich" revealed as person
>who shot down Col. Henry Blake's plane on "M*A*S*H."
>
>And finally:
>
>* $1 million: Remake of "Titanic" in which pushy ship executive named
>"George W. Bush" elbows aside women and children and sneaks onto lifeboat.
>
>Rough Draft which appears three times a week at washingtonpost.com, cannot
>be bought. Sometimes it can not even be read.
>
>###########################
>Pubdate: Sat, 15 Jan 2000
>Source: Washington Post (DC)
>Copyright: 2000 The Washington Post Company
>Address: 1150 15th Street Northwest, Washington, DC 20071
>Feedback: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm
>Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
>Related: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n045/a01.html
>
>DRUGS, TV AND PROPAGANDA
>
>IN OFFERING television networks financial incentives to toe the White
>House's anti-drug line, the Office of National Drug Control Policy co-opts
>ostensibly independent broadcasters for propaganda purposes - and the
>broadcasters let themselves be co-opted. The arrangement is all the more
>disquieting for having been largely unknown -- though not really a secret -
>until its existence was reported Thursday by the online magazine Salon.
>
>This is not to say the government has no role in promoting an anti-drug
>message. To the contrary, if the president wishes to use his bully pulpit
>to urge Hollywood not to glorify drug use, more power to him. Indeed, that
>was precisely the purpose of the law that gave rise to this peculiar
>arrangement. The drug policy director's office was authorized to buy $1
>billion in anti-drug advertising over five years, with the networks
>providing, in effect, two minutes of time for every minute the government
>buys.
>
>Where the White House goes too far is in providing a direct and significant
>financial inducement to the networks to weave the government's anti-drug
>message into network programming. The drug policy director's office does
>this by letting the networks sell advertising time that had been committed
>to free public-service spots - if network programs portray the ill effects
>of drugs.
>
>This puts government in the position of assessing how on-message the
>networks really are and networks in the position of increasing their profit
>if they satisfy the White House script reviewers.
>
>Unlike viewers of anti-drug ads, viewers of these programs don't know that
>they are receiving government-sponsored political messages.
>
>It's kind of like commercial product placement - only the product is White
>House spin.
>
>In this case, we happen to agree with the spin, and the idea of sitcoms and
>television dramas carrying anti-drug themes seems healthy.
>
>But where does it end? Could the government pay the networks to slip idle
>comments into "ER" about the virtues of a particular health care policy?
>
>There is nothing wrong with government's promoting a message - it happens
>all the time and often with good cause - but people have a right to know
>when they are being propagandized.
>
>###########################
>Pubdate: Fri, 14 Jan 2000
>Source: Boston Globe (MA)
>Copyright: 2000 Globe Newspaper Company.
>Contact: letter@globe.com
>Address: P.O. Box 2378, Boston, MA 02107-2378
>Feedback: http://extranet1.globe.com/LettersEditor/
>Website: http://www.boston.com/globe/
>Authors: Mark Jurkowitz and Don Aucoin, staff writers
>Related: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n043/a09.html
>http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n046.a04.html
>
>US FUNDS FED NETWORK ANTIDRUG ZEAL, REPORT SAYS
>
>Prime-time television's role as a combatant in the war on drugs was
>highlighted yesterday by a story alleging that broadcasters reaped
>financial gain by including antidrug messages in prime-time programs as
>part of an arrangement with the federal government.
>
>According to the on-line magazine Salon, the six broadcast networks - NBC,
>ABC, CBS, Fox, the WB, and UPN - have earned nearly $25 million from a
>complex advertising deal under which government officials and their
>''contractors'' approved and sometimes changed scripts ''to conform with
>the government's antidrug messages.''
>
>All the networks - except the WB network, which had no immediate comment to
>the Globe - denied that scripts or program content had been altered to
>accommodate the government. In a typical response, Rosalyn Weinman, NBC
>executive vice president of broadcast content policy, said the network
>"never ceded content control of any of our programming" to the government
>and "at no time did NBC turn over scripts for approval."
>
>In addition, Bob Weiner, a spokesman for chief White House drug adviser
>Barry McCaffrey, insisted, "We don't clear scripts."
>
>However, some networks did gain financially by airing programs with
>antidrug messages that met the approval of the White House Office of
>National Drug Control Policy. Certain antidrug themes within entertainment
>programs qualified as virtual public service announcements, allowing the
>networks to reclaim antidrug advertising time and sell it at higher rates.
>
>According to the on-line magazine, episodes of such programs as NBC's "ER,"
>ABC's "The Practice," and CBS's "Cosby" were "assigned a monetary value by
>the drug czar's office and its two ad buyers." The Associated Press
>reported that the WB network altered an episode of "The Smart Guy" to make
>drug-using teens look like "losers" after a government review.
>
>Weiner said that more than 100 programs last year did receive credit for
>antidrug messages, and that roughly a dozen were rejected. But he insisted
>that those shows were only reviewed after they were completed. Another two
>dozen shows voluntarily approached the drug office for technical script
>advice on how to accurately depict drug abuse, but did not accrue any
>financial benefits for doing so, he added.
>
>"The law mandates that we have entertainment industry collaboration to
>fashion anti-drug messages in television programming," he said. "We plead
>guilty to using every lawful means to save the lives of America's children."
>
>But the extent of television's role in that crusade is at the heart of the
>explosive charges in Salon. If the government was actually involved in
>crafting antidrug story lines for television shows' "that's really
>frightening," said Robert J. Thompson, of Syracuse University's Center for
>the Study of Popular Television. "The most fundamental issue here is that
>short of debates and political advertising, has the federal government got
>any business using the television airwaves in that fashion?"
>
>The magazine reported that the arrangement began two years ago when
>Congress approved $1 billion to buy antidrug commercials on network
>television, but only if the ad time was sold to the government at
>half-price. The magazine said that the the Office of National Drug Control
>Policy offered to relinquish some of that cut-rate commercial time back to
>the networks "in return for getting anti-drug motifs incorporated within
>specific prime-time shows."
>
>"With the deal in place, government officials and their contractors began
>approving, and in some cases altering, the scripts of shows before they
>were aired to conform with the government's anti-drug message," according
>to Salon.
>
>On that point, the networks delivered unequivocal denials. "At no point has
>the independence or the creative integrity of our programming been
>compromised," said CBS spokesman Dana McClintock. Fox issued a statement
>that said that while the network "is proud of its work with ONDCP and
>remains committed to working with the office in promoting its anti-drug
>efforts. ... At no time has the ONDCP either sought or been granted
>creative control over Fox program content."
>
>ABC spokeswoman Julie Hoover said the network "never submitted scripts
>ahead of time."
>
>"This has had no impact whatsoever on UPN programming, nor has UPN actively
>requested any of our writers or producers to provide storylines for ONDCP
>sponsorship," said UPN spokesman Paul McGuire.
>
>Daniel Forbes, the New York freelancer who wrote the article for Salon
>magazine, said, "We stand by the story 1000 percent. They [the networks]
>are running as fast as they can. They're lying through their teeth."
>
>###########################
>Pubdate: Fri, 14 Jan 2000
>Source: The Herald, Everett (WA)
>Copyright: 2000 The Daily Herald Co., Everett, Wash.
>Contact: letters@heraldnet.com
>Website: http://www.heraldnet.com/
>Author:  David Bauder, The Associated Press
>Note: Many smaller newspapers are front paging this important story
>
>SHOWS URGED TO JUST SAY NO
>
>Networks Paid To Include Anti-drug Messages In Scripts Of Top
>Programs
>
>
>Pasadena, Calif. -- The federal government used financial incentives
>to get television networks to work anti-drug messages into the scripts
>of some popular TV shows. The White House drug office even got the
>opportunity to review scripts before the shows aired.
>
>
>The arrangement, first disclosed Wednesday by the online magazine
>Salon.com, raised questions about the independence of networks and
>their willingness to let others influence what goes on the air.
>
>
>Among the shows reviewed by the government were NBC's top-rated "ER,"
>CBS' "Chicago Hope" and "Cosby," ABC's "The Drew Carey Show" and "The
>Practice" and Fox's "Beverly Hills 90210," according to Salon.com.
>
>
>The arrangement stemmed from Congress' 1997 approval of a program to
>buy anti-drug ads on television. Networks were asked to match each
>commercial spot bought by the government with a free one. Since the
>program started, however, commercial time has become more valuable
>with the rising demand for ads by Internet companies.
>
>
>The government has since agreed to give up some of its ad time -- as
>long as the networks demonstrate that some of their programs convey
>anti-drug messages, said Rich Hamilton, CEO of Zenith Media, the ad
>buying firm that helped develop the idea as a go-between for the
>networks and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.
>
>
>That freed up advertising time that the networks could then sell to
>other clients at steeper prices, Hamilton said. The White House drug
>office valued the programming messages it had approved at $22 million.
>
>
>An expert on media ethics said it raises questions about the motives
>of the entertainment industry.
>
>
>"What it can do for the networks is make it seem that they are only
>going to run those messages or shows that have prior government
>approval," said Aly Colon, a professor at the Poynter Institute. "That
>may not be reality, but at least it can become a perception."
>
>
>Networks submitted scripts or tapes of completed shows for the
>government drug office's review, said Alan Levitt, director of the
>national youth media campaign at the White House drug office. At no
>time did the office suggest changes or rewrite the scripts, he said.
>
>
>"All we said was, if you believe that a certain program that you
>intend to broadcast delivers our message -- essentially that drugs can
>kill you -- submit it to us for an evaluation and we may decide that
>we can credit you for a pro bono match," Hamilton said.
>
>
>Fox said it had received financial credit for episodes of "Beverly
>Hills 90210" and "America's Most Wanted." They were aired in lieu of
>public-service announcements, but did not necessarily free up air time
>for Fox to sell to other businesses, spokesman Tom Tyre said. The WB
>network received credit for an episode of "7th Heaven," a spokesman
>said.
>
>
>The WB said that in an episode of the "Smart Guy" series, two
>substance-abusing teen-agers were originally depicted as being
>popular, but the script was changed after government review to show
>them as "losers" hidden away in a utility room taking drugs.
>
>
>Spokesman Brad Turell said it is common for the network to ask for
>changes to a script before a show is aired. Just because the
>government gave advice in this instance doesn't mean the network gave
>up creative control, he said.
>
>###########################
>Pubdate: Fri, 14 Jan 2000
>Source: Tampa Tribune (FL)
>Copyright: 2000, The Tribune Co.
>Contact: tribletters@tampatrib.com
>Website: http://www.tampatrib.com/
>Forum: http://tampabayonline.net/interact/welcome.htm
>Section: Front page
>Author: Howard Kurtz and Sharon Waxman, Washington Post
>
>U.S. REWARDED NETWORKS FOR ANTIDRUG TV SCRIPTS
>
>WASHINGTON -- The White House, in quiet collaboration with the major
>broadcast television networks, has reviewed scripts of such popular shows
>as "ER," "Chicago Hope" and "Beverly Hills 90210" and made suggestions on
>at least two dozen programs to help them convey an aggressively antidrug
>message.
>
>In exchange for their cooperation, a White House official confirmed
>Thursday, the networks were freed from obligations to provide $22 million
>in public-service advertising over the past two years, allow them to sell
>the lucrative time to corporate advertisers.
>
>Alan Levitt, who runs the program the White House drug czar's office, said
>his office reviews television scripts "to, if they're on strategy or not"
>by portraying youth drug use in a negative light. If so, the networks are
>given credits that enable them to sell more air time to commercial
>advertisers rather than donating it for anti-drug drug and other messages.
>
>The arrangement, first reported by the online magazine Salon, drew swift
>criticism. "If the public begins to believe that a message is only being
>put forward because of financial remuneration, there's a strong chance of
>undermining the value of all our messages,", said John Wells, executive
>producer of "ER"
>
>Wells, who said he had been unaware of the cooperation with the White
>House, said the effort "implies that the programs you're watching can be
>influenced by those kinds of financial incentives, and that's simply not
>the case."
>
>Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president the nonprofit Media Access Project said
>"The idea of the government attempting to influence public opinion covertly
>is reprehensible beyond words. It's one thing to appropriate money to buy
>ads, another thing to spend the money to influence the public subliminally.
>
>And it's monstrously selfish and irresponsible on the part of the
>broadcasters."
>
>Some network executives said their companies submitted scripts for review
>in advance, while others said the White House examined shows after they
>aired. But all those interviewed Thursday said they never allowed the
>government to dictate the programs' content.
>
>Robert Weiner, spokesman for the drug control office, said the advertising
>of credits are granted for a prime-time program "which is a very positive
>statement and has the proper message on drugs and is accurate. There's
>nothing wrong with that. They've given us positive programs. If you've got
>a good "ER," that's certainly as important as an ad."
>
>The unusual financial arrangement stems from a 1997 law in which Congress
>approved $1 billion for antidrug advertising over five years; this year's
>allotment is $185 million. Networks that agree to participate are legally
>required to provide a dollar-for-dollar match for each spot purchased by
>the government by carrying public-service ads by nonprofit groups working
>with the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.
>
>After some networks balked, drug control officials worked out a compromise.
>They said they would credit the networks for each entertainment program
>with what they viewed as the proper message - up to three 30-second spots
>per show - enabling network executives to sell that time to corporate
>advertisers instead of using it for public-service ads.
>
>The White House has worked with more than 100 shows, which may feature such
>themes as "parents in denial" or "peer refusal skills," Levitt said. He
>said the office's experts reviewed scripts in advance in perhaps 50 cases,
>and that in two dozen instances a network asked for the administration's
>input. The contacts are generally with sales executives, not writers and
>producers, Levitt said.
>
>Several network executives confirmed the governments financial incentives
>but said they knew of no scripts that had been changed as a result.
>
>An NBC spokeswoman would not confirm or deny Salon's report that NBC
>redeemed $1.4 million worth of ad time in exchange for several "ER"
>episodes that dealt with drug abuse.
>
>A CBS spokesman said the network had been able to recoup advertising time
>for antidrug plot lines on such hit shows as "Touched by an Angel," "Cosby"
>and "Chicago Hope."
>
>Producers at one CBS program, "Chicago Hope," resuscitated a script with a
>strong antidrug theme because of a suggestion from a television executive.
>
>WB said in a statement that the network redeemed advertising credits after
>consulting with the White House on scripts for "Smart Guy" and "Wayans
>Brothers," but said it often talked to outside organizations in preparing
>programs.
>
>Other cooperating programs, the Salon article said, include "Promised Land"
>on CBS; "The Drew Carey Show," " Home Improvement," "Sabrina the Teenage
>'Witch," "Boy Meets World," "Sports Night" and "General Hospital" on
>ABC; "Trinity" and "Providence" on NBC; and WB's "7th Heaven."
>
>###########################
>Pubdate: Friday,January 14,2000
>Source: Orange County Register (CA)
>Copyright: 2000 The Orange County Register
>Contact: letters@link.freedom.com
>Address: P.O. Box 11626, Santa Ana, CA 92711
>Fax: (714) 565-3657
>Website: http://www.ocregister.com/
>Author: DAVID BAUDER-The Associated Press-The New York Times contributed to
>this report
>
>NETWORKS GOT AID FOR ANTI-DRUG MESSAGES
>
>TV: Government Gave Incentives For Shows To Include Theme In Lieu Of Ads.
>
>PASADENA-The federal government used financial incentives to get television
>networks to work anti-drug messages into the scripts of some popular TV
>shows. The White House drug office also got the opportunity to review
>scripts before the shows aired.
>
>The arrangement was first disclosed by the online news service Salon.com.
>
>Among the shows reviewed by the government were NBC's "ER", CBS' "Chicago
>Hope" and "Cosby," ABC's "The Drew Carey Show" and "The Practice," and
>Fox's "Beverly Hills 90210," according to Salon.com.
>
>The arrangement stemmed from Congress' 1997 approval of a program to buy
>anti-drug ads on TV. Networks were required to match each commercial spot
>bought by the government with a free one. Since the program started,
>however, ad time has become more valuable with the rising demand by
>Internet companies.
>
>The government has since agreed to give up some of its ad time - saving the
>networks in excess of $20 million in advertising costs - as long as the
>networks demonstrate that some of their programs convey anti-drug messages,
>said Rich Hamilton, CEO of Zenith Media, the ad-buying firm that helped
>develop the idea as a go-between for the networks and the White House
>Office of National Drug Control Policy.
>
>This freed advertising time the networks could then sell to other clients
>at steeper prices, Hamilton said. The White House drug office valued the
>programming messages it had approved at $22 million.
>
>"I'm fairly amazed that there has been any concern expressed about this,"
>Hamilton said. "It has been so above board and clearly voluntary."
>
>An expert on media ethics said it raises questions about the industry's
>motives.
>
>The practice can make it seem that the networks "are only going to run
>those messages or shows that have prior government approval," said Aly
>Colon, a professor at the Poynter Institute.
>
>Said Steve Dnistrian of the Partnership For a Drug-Free America, "The
>government is not rejecting scripts or controlling creative direction.
>That's absurd."
>
>Under the program, government officials get an advance look at scripts or
>tapes of shows the networks want to submit and an opportunity to make the
>case that anti-drug messages be inserted. Occasionally, the drug policy
>office might suggest that a scene be changed or a line rewritten to show
>characters turning down marijuana or ruining their lives through cocaine,
>said Alan Levitt, an official in the drug policy office who helped create
>the program.
>
>In at least 24 instances over the past few years, networks or producers
>have come to the drug office for advice in how to portray substance abuse
>situations, Levitt said. This was independent of the deal offering
>financial credit, he said.
>
>"All we said was, if you believe that a certain program that you intend to
>broadcast delivers our message - essentially that drugs can kill you -
>submit it to us for an evaluation and we may decide that we can credit you
>for a pro bono match," Hamilton said.
>
>Fox said it had received financial credit for episodes of "Beverly Hills
>90210" and "America's Most Wanted." They were aired in lieu of
>public-service announcements, spokesman Tom Tyre said. The WB network
>received credit for an episode of "7th Heaven," officials said.
>
>NBC has not accepted any credits for anti-drug messages, said Rosalyn
>Weinman, executive vice president of broadcast content policy.
>
>ABC spokeswoman Julie Hoover said the network submitted scripts to the drug
>office, but received no credit because it had already provided enough free
>commercials.
>
>###########################
>Pubdate: Fri, 14 Jan 2000
>Source: San Luis Obispo County Tribune (CA)
>Copyright: 2000 The Tribune
>Contact: wgroshong@Thetribunenews.com
>Address: P.O. Box 112, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-0112
>Fax: 805.781.7905
>Website: http://www.thetribunenews.com/
>See: The Salon report at: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n043.a09.html
>
>NETWORKS GIVEN INCENTIVE FOR ANTI-DRUG ADS
>
>Government Reviewed Scripts Of Popular Shows
>
>PASADENA (AP) - The federal government used financial incentives to get
>television networks to work anti-drug messages into the scripts of some
>popular TV shows.  The White House drug office even got the opportunity to
>review scripts before the shows aired.
>
>The arrangement, first disclosed Wednesday by the online news service
>Salon.com, raised questions about the independence of networks and their
>willingness to let others influence what goes on the air.
>
>Among the shows reviewed by the government were NBC's top-rated "ER," CBS's
>"Chicago Hope" and "Cosby," ABC's "The Carey Show" and "The Practice," and
>Fox's "Beverly Hills 90210," according to Salon.com.
>
>The arrangement stemmed from congress' 1997 approval of a program to buy
>anti-drug ads on TV. Networks were asked to match each commercial spot
>bought by the government with a free one.
>
>The government has since agreed to give up some of its ad time-as long as
>the networks demonstrate that some of their programs convey anti-drug
>messages, said Rich Hamilton, CEO of  Zenith Media, the ad buying firm that
>helped develop the idea as a go-between for the networks and the White
>House Office of National Drug Control Policy.
>
>This freed up advertising time that the networks could then sell to other
>clients at steeper prices,Hamilton said. The White House drug office valued
>the programming messages it has approved at $22 million.
>
>"I'm fairly amazed that there has been any concern expressed about this,"
>Hamilton said. "It has been so above board and clearly voluntary on the
>part of everyone involved."
>
>Yet an expert on media ethics said it raises questions about the motives of
>the entertainment industry.
>
>"What it can do for the networks is make it seem that they are only going
>to run those messages or shows that have prior government approval," said
>Aly Colon, a professor at the Poynter Institute. "That may not be reality,
>but at least it can become a perception."
>
>Networks submitted scripts or tapes of completed shows for the government
>drug office's review, said Alan Levitt, director of the national youth
>media campaign at the White House drug office. At no time did the office
>suggest changes or rewrite the scripts, he said.
>
>"All we said was, if you believe that a certain program that you intend to
>broadcast delivers our message-essentially that drugs can kill you-submit
>it to us for an evaluation and we may decide that we can credit you for a
>pro bono match," Hamilton said.
>
>
>================================================================
>
>This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>   the mailing list <LIST@mcwilliams.com>.
>To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <LIST-off@mcwilliams.com>