>From: "Peter McWilliams" <peter@mcwilliams.com>
>Subject: McMeltdown reaching critical mass!
>Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 14:27:38 -0800
>X-Mozilla-Status: 8001
>X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
>
>Let's not "kick the cat," (see first story) let's kick McCaffrey!
>
>Also, note how the LA Times is trying to gloss the whole thing over.
>
>Enjoy,
>
>Peter
>
>
>
>
>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/
>Author: Lisa de Moraes
>
>NETWORKS' BRONZE STAR IN WAR ON DRUGS
>
>PASADENA, Calif., Jan. 14-Pity the poor broadcast networks. The very morning
>a "scientific" study is released that--unlike all the other studies--says
>that the networks are not single-handedly responsible for the corruption of
>American youth, a report hits the media that they are involved in a deal
>with the very group that funded the study--the White House Office of
>National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP).
>
>The White House confirmed on Thursday that six major broadcast networks were
>given financial incentives to provide programming that conveyed an anti-drug
>message. Under that pact, ad time is being given back to the networks for
>shows that include negative portrayals of drug use. So far, the broadcasters
>have received credit for 109 episodes of prime-time series, the ONDCP said,
>resulting in ad time being given back to them--which they can then sell to
>corporate advertisers.
>
>Problem is, nobody seems to have told the producers and studio execs about
>the practice. A number of them expressed understandable outrage after
>reading about it in the newspapers. They used words like "appalling" and
>"inconceivable" and "troubling" and "never in my career."
>
>But when asked if they would agree to insert anti-drug messages in their
>programs in exchange for millions of dollars from the federal government,
>they had to think about it long and hard before finally deciding they
>wouldn't, "even if they paid us."
>
>According to the ONDCP study also made public today, illicit drugs are
>almost never shown on prime-time broadcast TV. And, on the few occasions
>they are, it's almost always with negative consequences.
>
>"I believe the broadcast television industry is making progress in sending
>our kids the right messages about drug abuse," ONDCP Director Barry
>McCaffrey said today in a statement.
>
>The study, "Substance Use in Popular Prime-Time Television," looked at the
>prime-time broadcast TV programs that were most watched by white, Hispanic
>and African American teens.
>
>It found only 3 percent of the 168 episodes analyzed depicted illicit drugs.
>In 20 percent, illegal drugs were mentioned, but in almost all incidents,
>they were not glamorized.
>
>One in five episodes included the use of tobacco, but never by a character
>under the age of 18. But 71 percent of the episodes showed the use of
>alcohol, including a large proportion of adult major characters. Only once,
>however, was it used by someone under the legal drinking age.
>
>One of the researchers, Donald Roberts of Stanford University, said that
>many times pouring a drink was used simply as a means of moving a character
>from position A on a set to position B. He added that, as a parent and
>grandparent, he hoped producers in the future would instead have the
>characters move from A to B by kicking the cat.
>
>Which would then give PETA an opportunity to present a study about the ill
>effects of prime-time TV to The Reporters Who Cover Television, who just
>can't get enough of this stuff.
>
>McCaffrey, who conveniently couldn't make his scheduled appearance here
>because of a long flight from Switzerland back to Washington, instead sent
>his deputy. Donald Vereen was besieged with questions about the news reports
>on the ONDCP-network anti-drug deal.
>
>According to Alan Levitt, director of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
>Campaign, which is part of the ONDCP, the networks' sales departments decide
>which episodes of shows to submit to the ONDCP, via its New York-based ad
>agency, Ogilvy & Mather. ONDCP then sends the episodes to its panel of
>experts, which decides which ones qualify for the ad credits. Those episodes
>are then sent back to Ogilvy, which gives the episode up to three points,
>determining how much ad time the network gets back. Keep in mind that
>30-second, prime-time ad spots sell for six figures, so there's a lot of
>money at stake.
>
>President Clinton came to McCaffrey's defense today in Washington, saying
>that the drug czar concluded that putting anti-drug messages in prime-time
>programs rather than little-watched late-night public service announcements
>was a "good thing."
>
>"It's my understanding that there's nothing mandatory about this," Clinton
>said, "that there was no attempt to regulate content or tell people what
>they had to put into it--of course, I wouldn't support that. But I think
>he's done a very good job at increasing the sort of public interest
>component of what young people hear on the media, and I think it's working;
>we see drug use dropping."
>
>White House spokesman Joe Lockhart said at the daily briefing in Washington
>today that "this particular program, I think, is the result of looking for
>other ways to get the message out that allows networks in a robust
>advertising environment to sell to other people where they can make more
>money."
>
>At the TV press tour, a reporter asked Peter Roth, the head of Warner Bros.
>TV, if he found any similarity between inserting the feds' anti-drug message
>in an episode of "Friends" and inserting subliminal Pottery Barn ads. In
>last week's episode, Jennifer Aniston's character, Rachel, keeps buying
>Pottery Barn household items on the sly to furnish the apartment she now
>shares with Phoebe (Lisa Kudrow), who wants her digs furnished only with
>recycled items. The ruse blows up when Kudrow walks by a Pottery Barn
>store--on camera--and sees all her new furnishings in the window.
>
>At which point, Studio USA's President David Kissinger--yes, Henry's
>boy--jumped to Roth's defense, saying that last he'd checked, Pottery Barn
>didn't represent as much a threat to our civil liberties as the federal
>government.
>
>###########################
>Pubdate: Fri, 14 Jan 2000
>Source: Houston Chronicle (TX)
>Copyright: 2000 Houston Chronicle
>Contact: viewpoints@chron.com
>Address: Viewpoints Editor, P.O. Box 4260 Houston, Texas 77210-4260
>Fax: (713) 220-3575
>Website: http://www.chron.com/
>Forum: http://www.chron.com/content/hcitalk/index.html
>
>NETWORKS, FEDS MADE AGREEMENT
>Anti-Drug Message Worked Into Scripts
>
>PASADENA, Calif. (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 Drew Carey Show and The
>Practice, and Fox's Beverly Hills 90210, according to Salon.com.
>
>The complicated 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. 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.
>
>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 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 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.
>
>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.
>
>Salon.com, quoting an unidentified source, said that in an episode of
>the WB's 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.
>
>A spokesman for the WB had no comment.
>
>In at least 24 instances over the past few years, networks or
>producers have come to the federal drug office for advice on how to
>portray substance abuse situations, Levitt said.
>
>For example, producers and writers of ER have frequently contacted the
>office. One recent storyline about a youth coming into the emergency
>room after having abused alcohol was likely included after the office
>told producers that alcohol is the most frequently abused drug among
>young people, said Donald Vereen, deputy director of the White House
>drug policy office.
>
>"We plead guilty to using every lawful means to saving the lives of
>children," said another member of the drug office, Bob Weiner.
>
>###########################
>Pubdate: Sat, 15 Jan 2000
>Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
>Copyright: 2000 Los Angeles Times
>Contact: letters@latimes.com
>Address: Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA 90053
>Fax: (213) 237-4712
>Website: http://www.latimes.com/
>Forum: http://www.latimes.com/home/discuss/
>Author: Elizabeth Jensen, Eric Lichtblau, Times Staff Writers
>Note: Times staff writers Art Pine, Richard Simon, Jube Shiver and Edwin
>Chen contributed to this story from Washington; Times staff writer Greg
>Braxton contributed from Los Angeles.
>Note: This story is the result of the articles by Dan Forbes at:
>http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n043/a09.html
>See: The DrugSense Alert at:
>http://www.mapinc.org/alert/0145.html
>
>WHITE HOUSE DEFENDS ANTI-DRUG, TV TIE
>
>Media: Officials say they believe they can continue to use network
>programming to get message out. Influence on creative content is denied.
>
>In Hollywood and in Washington, White House officials Friday mounted an
>aggressive defense of their efforts to get more anti-drug themes on
>television, rejecting claims that surfaced earlier this week that their
>program has amounted to censorship and payola.
>
>Despite the flurry of criticism, officials said they are confident that
>they can continue to use network programming to get their message out.
>
>Alan Levitt, director of what is formally called the National Youth
>Anti-Drug Media Campaign, said "never once that I'm aware of" had a program
>been submitted in advance and then altered in order to receive credit from
>the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.
>
>"What we're doing is in accordance with the law," said retired Gen. Barry
>R. McCaffrey, head of the drug control policy office, in an interview. "I
>am hyper-sensitive to 1st Amendment rights issues, and I am not going to
>get involved in influencing program content."
>
>Meanwhile, anti-drug office Deputy Director Donald Vereen, speaking at a
>news conference in Pasadena to unveil results of a survey that looked at
>how the networks depict drug and alcohol use, said the program has been
>entirely public and never sought to get story lines changed.
>
>The networks all denied that the drug policy office had any influence on
>creative content or that the process was secretive. As NBC's Rosalyn
>Weinman, executive vice president of broadcast content policy and East
>Coast entertainment, put it: "NBC never ceded content of any of our
>programming to the [drug control policy office] or any other department of
>the government. At no time did NBC turn over scripts for approval." The
>other networks issued similar statements, and at this point none intend to
>walk away from participation in the program, which continues for three more
>years.
>
>The five-year program was designed as a way to get anti-drug messages to
>the forefront and not relegated to the wee hours of the morning when public
>service announcements often air. Under the plan, the government buys prime
>ad time on a network (or space in a newspaper or on a Web site) for
>anti-drug messages. In exchange, however, that network, newspaper or Web
>site must donate public service time equivalent to half of what the
>government bought.
>
>Because messages within a program are much more effective than 30-second
>ads, the White House office decided to let media outlets earn credits for
>incorporating anti-drug messages in their content.
>
>The process of gaining credit works like this: A producer, whether working
>for the network's in-house production company or for an outside supplier,
>develops a story line. If the story is drug-related, the producer or writer
>or even the network that is planning to air the show may or may not seek
>technical advice from the ONDCP, just as they seek advice from other
>organizations on how to portray a disability or safe sex. Once the episode
>is finished, either in script form or in taped form, it is submitted to the
>drug control policy office by the network sales department and apparently
>without the knowledge of the producers, for credit.
>
>Whether the network got credit depended on whether the plot fit into one of
>the strategic messages in what the White House office calls its "burgundy
>bible" (for the color of the cover) that lists such concepts as "peer
>refusal skills" or "parent efficacy" deemed important by the office, Levitt
>said. Perhaps "a couple dozen" completed shows that were submitted were
>rejected for not fitting into the office's plan, he said. The networks
>received credit for 109 episodes.
>
>Top television producer Dick Wolf termed the controversy a "non-issue": "If
>you look at my shows, going from 'Miami Vice' to 'Law & Order,' you see how
>we handle [the drug issue]. I've never ever had a call from the network
>asking us to put anything in."
>
>But many writer-producers felt stung that they had not been told about the
>program. "I think it's appalling," said Gail Berman, president of Regency
>Television. "It's inappropriate for the government to participate in this
>way in the production of television."
>
>Ira Glasser, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said
>it was laughable to suggest that the White House has been reviewing TV
>scripts without wanting to influence their content. "They just like to
>read? "Basically what this says if that if you want to sell your ad space
>at full price, you've got to give the government the right to look at what
>you're saying in your sitcoms and see if they meet the government's
>requirements. It's unconstitutional. There are severe 1st Amendment
>problems."
>
>Even more distressing, Glasser said, is the "complicity" shown by the
>networks in agreeing to the practice. "They've betrayed their viewers'
>trust and I think ought to be criticized at least as severely as the
>government." But President Clinton voiced his support of the program's
>intent: "It's my understanding that there is nothing mandatory about this,
>that nobody--there was no attempt to regulate content or tell people what
>they had to put into it. Of course, I wouldn't support that. But I think
>[McCaffrey's] done a very good job at increasing the sort of public
>interest component of what young people hear on the media."
>
>On Capitol Hill, the program got mixed reviews, drawing both praise and
>condemnation. "I strongly support anti-drug messages, but this is a very
>troubling precedent," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles). "It is
>also not what Congress expected when it provided $1 billion in 1997 for
>anti-drug TV ads." John Feehery, spokesman for House Speaker J. Dennis
>Hastert (R-Ill.), said it was "very upsetting that the White House has
>control over the content of the nation's television programs."
>
>But Feehery says he hasn't heard of any plans for lawmakers to hold
>hearings on the issue, and Republicans say privately they aren't likely to
>pick a fight with the administration over it.
>
>As for other government oversight, Federal Communications Commission
>spokesman Joy Howell said the agency isn't currently reviewing the White
>House's conduct or its own FCC rules but said "if somebody filed a
>complaint, we'd look at it."
>
>
>
>================================================================
>
>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>