White House Tie to Anti-Drug TV Scripts Criticized

The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy is under fire for a controversial strategy said to have financially rewarded television networks for incorporating anti-drug messages into such shows as “ER” and “Chicago Hope.”

The unorthodox arrangement, detailed in the online news service Salon, has raised awkward questions about whether broadcasters changed story lines in an effort to spare themselves from allocating valuable air time to free public-service spots.

Both network representatives and the drug-control policy office deny that the incentives played any direct role in influencing program content.

Donald Vereen, deputy director of the drug-control policy office, said the goal was to help and encourage networks to join in the anti-drug education effort, not to interfere with the creative process.

That kind of interference “has never been there between the creative community in Hollywood and the federal government,” he said. “We aren’t in a position to dictate anything.”

The networks also issued denials, with NBC’s executive vice president of broadcast standards, Rosalyn Weinman, saying in a statement that the network “never ceded control to the ONDCP or any department of the government. At no time did NBC turn over scripts for approval from the ONDCP.”

Even if the direct influence of the relationship was minimal, as network and White House officials suggest, the story’s timing represented a major embarrassment to the White House anti-drug office. Officials planned to release results today of a study that concludes television generally does a far better job than movies and music when it comes to responsible depictions of drug, tobacco and alcohol use--seemingly endorsing the value of the White House office’s own work.

Broadcasters are required, under a 1997 law, to donate public service time commensurate with the amount bought by the White House office. However, networks can achieve credit toward those matching spots based on anti-drug messages within programs. That time could then be sold to advertisers, with each 30-second commercial in a top-rated show such as “ER” worth more than $500,000.

The drug-control office and some networks acknowledged that scripts were at times reviewed in advance. Moreover, networks claimed more than $20 million in credit, against their matching obligations, for programs carrying anti-drug themes, including NBC’s redemption of over $1 million, according to Salon, for a drug-use plot on “ER.”

Network representatives acknowledge scripts and videotapes were occasionally sent to the drug-control office but say the government in no way exercised veto power over their content.

Television industry officials point out that anti-drug efforts have been underway since long before the office initiated its push under the current White House drug czar, retired Army Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey.

Academy of Television Arts & Sciences Chairman Meryl Marshall said anti-drug awareness has been elevated in TV circles since the mid-1980s, when First Lady Nancy Reagan made drugs a national issue. Grant Tinker, then the chairman of NBC, was instrumental in establishing strong guidelines at that time.

“The leadership that started then has pretty much stayed intact in regard to the drug issue,” she said. “It’s become socially unacceptable among creative people to present drugs in a glamorous way.”

Various organizations, such as the nonprofit Entertainment Industries Council, have spent years seeking to inform TV producers about such matters, offering resources to help programs explore the subject. Similar efforts have involved issues ranging from wearing seat belts to racial tolerance.

Even so, such explanations did little to mollify media critics, who contend broadcasters abandoned their independence by making concessions to government aims in exchange for cash incentives.

Robert Corn-Revere, a former Federal Communications Commission chief counsel, told Salon the campaign is “pretty insidious. Government surreptitiously planting anti-drug messages using the power of the purse raises red flags. Why is there no disclosure to the American public?”

A White House spokesman defended the strategy, maintaining the goal was simply to facilitate getting positive messages across to children and teenagers. Some researchers have pointed out that the efficacy of public service advertisements is undermined when contradicted by the TV programs airing adjacent to them, a finding that the office has seized as a rationale for reaching out to the networks.

“When the message is embedded in [programming], it has a much more valuable ‘oomph,’ ” Vereen said. “The message has to get deeper than a 30-second or a 60-second spot.”

The office controls a $1-billion media budget, allocated over five years. About two-thirds of its expenditures go toward the purchase of advertising, with the rest earmarked to the media campaign.

*

RELATED STORY: F2