>From: "Peter McWilliams" >Subject: LA Times brown-nosing McCaffrey again >Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 00:12:16 -0800 >X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 >X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 > >Another letter the LA Times won't print, and the story that inspired it. > >Enjoy, > >Peter > >-------------- > > >RE: Your article "GOVERNMENT AND HOLLYWOOD, TOGETHER AGAIN ON ONE STAGE. >Media: Hoopla Over Anti-Drug Messages In TV Series Obscures Basic Reality >That Such Interplay Is Common." > >Common? Hardly. Name one other example of a government agency paying as much >as $1,600,000 per episode to place propaganda messages into television >programming. It has never been done before, as your long, meandering, and >meaningless article proves. > >With such a headline and subhead on the front page of its Sunday edition, >the Los Angeles Times once again attempts -- Lord knoweth why -- to place a >pleasant spin on the War on Drugs, the most egregious American violation of >human and civil rights since slavery. There is no logical, practical, >scientific, medical, or moral justification for this war fought against 20 >million otherwise law-abiding citizens. The prejudice against drug users is >bigotry, pure and simple. History will judge the Times harshly for joining >in the propagation of this unwarranted and horrific hatred. > >Sincerely, > >Peter McWilliams > >--------- > >Pubdate: Sun, 23 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: Paul Lieberman, Times Staff Writer > >GOVERNMENT AND HOLLYWOOD, TOGETHER AGAIN ON ONE STAGE > >Media: Hoopla Over Anti-Drug Messages In TV Series Obscures Basic Reality >That Such Interplay Is Common. > >Warren Weideman was having a hard time delivering, so to speak, for the U.S. >Postal Service. > >All it wanted was a few "positive portrayals" on TV and in the movies. But >try as he might to get Hollywood to show postal workers as nice guys, all >the entertainment marketing specialist saw were postmen who were mean to >kids or kicked dogs or shot people--going "postal," as they say. > >Then there were those sorry bag-toters on two of the highest-rated TV series >ever, "Cheers" and "Seinfeld": smart-aleck Cliff Claven, who sat on a bar >stool, and the fat, nasty Newman, who dumped mail in a warehouse rather than >deliver it. > >That's why Weideman decided to become a Hollywood producer--to make a movie >about the Postal Service. Weideman had a story to pitch, sure, but his real >asset was how the Postal Service would promote it: by paying for posters for >its 40,000 facilities, displaying life-sized cutouts of the main characters, >issuing commemorative envelopes and, if you called a post office and were >put on hold, you'd hear the star, Louis Gossett Jr., imploring you to "watch >Showtime on Sept. 20." > >So it was that a movie called "The Inspectors" aired in 1998, delivering >excellent ratings and an image boost for the Postal Service. > >So it was, also, that Weideman had to laugh this last week when he saw "all >the hoopla about this infiltration of government into entertainment," >specifically that federal officials had offered TV networks financial >incentives to inject anti-drug messages into series. > >With its overtones of censorship and propaganda, the revelation set off >finger-pointing and apologies, then a pledge by the White House drug czar, >retired Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, that his office would stop reviewing >scripts to eliminate "any inference of federal intrusion in the creative >process." > >But the "ah ha!" rhetoric obscures a basic reality: how this sort of >interplay is common, and always has been. Government officials have long >sought to use the mass media to get out their messages, whether about the >evils of communism, righteousness of a war or dangers of drunken driving. >Back to the first days of film, when the issues were sex and morality, they >have used the leverage of public haranguings and tangible threats--often of >new regulation--to influence what viewers see. They also learned to dangle a >carrot. Want a military base for filming? No problem--if the script has the >right spin. > >And while many writers and producers abhor such cooperation, others see no >problem in it. For some, it's the practical price you pay to get something. >Others are simply with the program. > >Ask "Baywatch" executive producer Greg Bonann how he's worked with the Coast >Guard, Marines, Army or Navy, the latter of which worries about public >support for a fleet of nuclear submarines now that the Cold War is over. >"How do they explain to people why we need these things?" Bonann asks. "What >better way than with the most-watched TV show in the world?" > >What's in it for him? "A chance to use a billion-dollar piece of equipment >for free." > >In return, he'll portray Navy personnel like those "Baywatch" lifeguards--as >rescuers. He'll also let the military review scripts, and more. "I don't >care what it is--they are welcome." > >You get a similar answer from the Postal Service chronicler, Weideman. You >also will be able to see his movie posters again, soon, in 40,000 post >offices. They'll be promoting "Inspectors 2," his sequel, due to air on >Showtime in March. > >When the first Oscar was awarded for best picture in 1927, military >officials should have been at the podium. They staged the crucial World War >I aerial combat scenes for the winner, "Wings." > >But during the real WWI, when President Wilson faced the daunting task of >gaining support for U.S. involvement, it was the fledgling silent movie >industry that helped the government. In theaters across the country, shows >would be halted between reels so one of a cadre of "Three-Minute Men"--from >the Office of Public Information--could rise and exhort the audience to back >the war and buy Liberty Bonds. > >Like any relationship, though, it was not all hugs and kisses. The new >industry came under attack after the war for its racy Roaring '20s themes. >To mollify critics, President Harding's postmaster general, Will H. Hayes, >was recruited in 1922 to head the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors >of America. Eight years later, as silent films gave way to talkies, it >adopted the Production Code under the principle, "No picture shall be >produced which will lower the moral standards of those who see it." > >Its list of specific "applications" reflected concerns voiced to this day. >Murders were not to be presented in a way that would "inspire imitation." >Adultery was not to be "treated attractively." There was to be no ridiculing >of "any religious faith." > >Movie-makers then ignored the code until 1934, when Congress prepared the >Federal Communications Act, annexing the airwaves for "the public interest." >That summer, the Hayes Office began enforcing the rules for real. Rick >Jewell, who teaches a censorship course at USC's film school, notes how, >from the earliest days, Hollywood used such preemptive strikes to stave off >"government intruding into their business." > >Other times, it seemed a love fest, as during World War II, when actors such >as Ronald Reagan appeared in troop training films, directors such as Frank >Capra rallied the home front with patriotic documentaries ("Why We Fight") >and Walt Disney helped smooth ruffled feathers in Latin America with Donald >Duck movies that portrayed a region of colorful fiestas, with nary a >dictatorship in sight. > >Some historians suggest that the studios had a self-interest in keeping the >government happy, such as making sure enough stars were free from active >duty to do commercial films. Whatever the motives, the close cooperation did >not seem to play as well after the wars. > >The post-WWII years gave us the McCarthy anti-Communist crusades and >blacklists that still divide Hollywood. This also was the period of such >alarm-ringing films as "I Married a Communist." And just as Los Angeles >police worked with Jack Webb in the creation of "Dragnet" in 1952, federal >law enforcement officials such as J. Edgar Hoover saw the value of programs >on radio--then TV--that took gloating material from their files for "Your >FBI in Peace and War" or "Your T-Men in Action." > >Director Robert Wise ("The Sound of Music" and "West Side Story") recalls >wanting Army tanks for his 1951 sci-fi classic "The Day the Earth Stood >Still" and how "you had to go to Washington and show them your script." His >told of a space alien, Klaatu, who is killed by a fearful government agency, >and an ending with Wise's plea for peace. The verdict? "They refused to >cooperate. I wasn't going to change the script," said Wise, 85. > >Wise's philosophy of filmmaking underscores one reason political efforts to >"send a message" often fail: Wise believed a message was best imparted >"between the lines." > >That subtle approach was rarely embraced by government or religious >campaigns to scare young people away from drugs, as with the 1935 film that >became a camp classic when re-released in the 1970s as "Reefer Madness." > >A decade after audiences howled at "Reefer," the "Just Say No" drive was >launched by First Lady Nancy Reagan, who, not surprisingly, enlisted the >help of Hollywood. In 1986, actor John Travolta gave her a list of 300 >celebrities endorsing the campaign. The next year, the pledge was embraced >by the adorable 12-year-old star of "E.T.," Drew Barrymore. > >By 16, Barrymore had written an autobiography, "Little Girl Lost," confiding >her own drug problems. Travolta went on to revive his flagging career by >playing a heroin-addicted hit man in "Pulp Fiction." > >Last year, the group carrying on Mrs. Reagan's campaign was retitled "Youth >Power," acknowledging: "The 'Just Say No' concept has taken on a number of >negative connotations in popular culture." > >Though Republicans have often been the loudest critics of Hollywood's >influence on culture, Democrats have seemed more willing to pass legislation >to affect programming. > >In 1988, President Reagan vetoed a bill limiting commercials during >children's programs and requiring stations to serve the needs of children as >a condition of renewing their FCC licenses. Congress passed a similar >measure two years later, but the perception was that broadcasters didn't >take the commitment seriously, claiming that reruns of "The Jetsons" met the >requirements. > >The Clinton administration then held summits with Hollywood officials and >introduced a series of measures to underscore its concern about effects on >children. These included support for the V-chip, a device allowing parents >to block out programs; further limits on tobacco advertising; and an >agreement in 1996 for broadcasters to air at least three hours of >educational children's programming weekly, rather than action shows such as >"Mighty Morphin Power Rangers" or other toy-driven half-hours. > >The next year, Congress authorized the program to buy $1 billion in air time >for anti-drug announcements--provided the networks donated equal time for >such spots. And after TV executives complained that that was too costly, the >White House Office of National Drug Control Policy decided they could earn >credits for some of that time--and thus sell it for profitable ads--by >instead injecting anti-drug story lines into shows. > >Though the drug fight is popular, the undisclosed arrangement outraged media >historians like Carlos Cortes, a professor emeritus at UC Riverside. "This >is the most blatant economic kind of leverage that I can recall being used >by government," he said. > >Warren Weideman doesn't mind if he's seen as a booster--that's what he was >before he became a producer. > >He was a "product placement" man, cutting deals to get Michelin tires or >Polaroid cameras on TV and in movies. > >He saw himself playing no different a role with another client, the >quasi-governmental Postal Service. But "as years went by," he grew >frustrated by his failure to produce positive images. Then a brainstorming >session shifted his focus to the service's federal law enforcement wing, >which once hunted down Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and more recently >made the cases against evangelist Jim Bakker and financier Michael Milken. > >Armed with rights to develop a TV movie on "The Inspectors" and the Postal >Service offer to provide marketing, he formed Park Avenue Productions in Los >Angeles. He and his writers then worked with a high-ranking postal inspector >to find a juicy story in the files. > >His understanding was clear: "I'm going to portray them in a positive light" >and they'd "make sure we didn't embellish." But that did not mean some "Buy >Stamps" infomercial, which no network would buy--and no one would watch. > >The movie sold to Showtime starred Gossett and Jonathan Silverman as one of >those "Odd Couple" crime-fighting teams. It may not be a "Lethal Weapon" >franchise, but they're back in "Inspectors 2," which will premier March 6 at >Washington's Kennedy Center before an audience including the postmaster >general. This time, the duo is after a credit card scammer played by Michael >Madsen. The script injects reminders to tear up unwanted credit card >applications, but it has romance too, Weideman says. > >Postal officials won't be alone in promoting the sequel. Bank of America, >which figures in the plot, will tout it at thousands of branches and on bank >statements. > >The task now? "We're looking for a story for 'Inspectors 3.' > >" * * *Times staff writers Richard Cooper in Washington and Brian Lowry, >Paul Brownfield and Susan King in Los Angeles contributed to this story. > > > >================================================================ > >This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . >To unsubscribe, E-mail to: