>From: "Peter McWilliams" >Subject: Now newspapers are on the dole >Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 19:37:39 -0800 >X-Mozilla-Status: 8003 >X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 > > >Drug Office Ad Deal Included Newspapers > >Times, Post Among Those Given Credits > > > >By Howard Kurtz, Washington Post Staff Writer, Thursday, January 20, 2000; > >Page C01 > > > >The New York Times took quite a whack at the White House drug policy > >adviser and the networks for cooperating on anti-drug efforts, saying in > >its lead editorial Tuesday that such arrangements could lead to "the > >possibility of censorship and state-sponsored propaganda." > > > >But it turns out that the Times also has a cooperative relationship with > >the drug control office, and also received financial benefits in exchange > >for activities in conjunction with the White House. > > > >"I knew absolutely nothing about this," Howell Raines, the Times editorial > >page editor, said yesterday. "If I had known, I would have mentioned it in > >the editorial." > > > >The Times has plenty of company. The drug office says it is spending $11.3 > >million in the current 12-month period to advertise in 250 newspapers, and > >that $893,000 of that money is being spent on the Times, USA Today and The > >Washington Post. And White House officials say that in three cases--two of > >them involving the Times and The Post--newspapers were granted $200,000 in > >financial credits that reduced the amount of public service advertising > >they are required to provide under the program. > > > >The six major broadcast networks have drawn criticism for allowing the drug > >office to review scripts and tapes of such popular shows as "ER" and > >"Beverly Hills, 90210," with the government in some cases making > >suggestions before the programs aired. But the arrangement with newspapers > >is different in one key respect: Both White House officials and newspaper > >executives say the administration deals only with advertising and does not > >examine news stories either before or after they are published. > > > >"There was no involvement by editorial employees of the Times and no > >advance content reviews or vetting, which is the critical issue where the > >networks are involved," Raines said. > > > >Still, there are monetary incentives to play ball. Under a 1997 law, once > >the drug office decides to advertise on a network or in a newspaper, the > >media outlet is required to donate a comparable amount of air time or space > >for public-service ads. In practice, say executives at Ogilvy, the drug > >office's advertising agency, newspapers fulfill their requirement by > >providing a 50 percent discount on the ads, which typically include two > >full-page displays and 12 smaller ads in the course of a year. > > > >In the case of the Times, the paper produced 30,000 booklets under its > >Newspapers in Education program to guide New York area teachers on dealing > >with drug abuse questions. In most cases, these teacher guides included > >eight articles on drug use that had previously been published in the Times, > >and the paper plans a second round of booklets to be distributed > >nationally. Similar information was posted on a Times Web site dealing with > >education--all of which entitled the paper to financial credits under the > >federal program. > > > >"We did meet with them and talk about the whole concept," a White House > >official said. "We looked at the piece after it was written, simply for > >accuracy." > > > >Shona Seifert, an Ogilvy executive, said that "programs and activities that > >cascade anti-drug messages out to communities are welcomed and embraced." > > > >Another White House official said $181,366 is budgeted for anti-drug > >advertising in The Post from last summer to next summer. "Based on the > >content, we decided we can charge this at a charity rate," said Post > >spokeswoman Linda Erdos. "It satisfied their financial budget." > > > >White House officials say The Post was credited for $20,000 for running a > >banner ad on the washingtonpost.com Web site that linked users to an > >anti-drug site maintained by the drug control office. A washingtonpost.com > >spokeswoman, however, said the banner ad was provided at a discount rate > >because the drug policy adviser's office is a regular customer. White House > >officials say six other papers--the Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, > >Minneapolis Star Tribune, Chicago Tribune, Hartford Courant and Arizona > >Republic--fulfilled part of their requirement through such Web advertising > >banners. > > > >Ogilvy executives say they are spending another $9 million on anti-drug > >advertising in magazines, including Time, Newsweek, People, Reader's > >Digest, Better Homes & Gardens and Family Circle. They also say they have > >an arrangement with America Online to carry anti-drug messages. > > > >After the controversy about cooperating with the networks erupted last > >week, Barry McCaffrey, the White House drug policy adviser, issued new > >guidelines under which the government will no longer review individual > >programs until after the episodes have been aired. ABC executives had said > >they were ending their cooperation because the administration was requiring > >them to provide the episodes in advance. > > > > © Copyright 2000 The Washington Post Company > > > >================================================================ > >This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . >To unsubscribe, E-mail to: