Drug Czar to Target Film Themes

White House drug policymakers, undeterred by the flak they caught earlier this year for quietly trying to sprinkle anti-drug messages into some of the nation’s most popular television shows, want to expand into an even bigger arena: the silver screen.

Federal officials plan to “leverage popular movies” by working more closely with major studios, writers and directors to promote films that “responsibly communicate [anti-drug] campaign messages,” according to a plan that Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, is expected to disclose today in congressional testimony.

“As powerful as television is, some experts believe that movies have an even stronger impact on young people,” according to McCaffrey’s statement, a copy of which was obtained by The Times.

McCaffrey’s push on the cinematic front promises to reopen a furious debate over how far government should go to get its anti-drug message out to young people.

In January, McCaffrey weathered fierce criticism from members of Congress, civil libertarians and creative forces in the television industry when it was disclosed that his office quietly had been giving major TV networks millions of dollars’ worth of financial credit for incorporating positive anti-drug messages in popular shows such as “E.R.,” “Beverly Hills, 90210,” “Cosby” and others.

The unusual arrangement grew out of 1997 legislation authorizing McCaffrey’s office to spend as much as $1 billion over five years to get anti-drug messages into the popular media.

White House drug officials said the campaign has been so successful that, by their count, the vast majority of children 12 to 17 are exposed to more than eight paid anti-drug advertisements each week, plus many subtler messages contained in programmed entertainment. But critics said that the campaign amounts to Orwellian-like censorship by the government, using hidden financial incentives to get its message into standard programming fare.

The 1997 legislation requires that for every dollar the government spends on anti-drug ads, the media outlet that receives the money--be it a television station, a newspaper, a magazine or other outlets--must match it with a public service announcement or similar anti-drug themed message.

But TV executives are loath to use valuable commercial air time for free ads, and McCaffrey’s office has allowed the major networks the option of meeting the air-time requirement by broadcasting shows that include positive and “accurate depictions of drug-use issues.”

To date, 109 television episodes have been awarded credit for what were deemed to be positive messages. In some instances, White House drug officials reviewed scripts and advance footage of shows and suggested changes. But when criticism erupted in January after an article appeared in the online magazine Salon, McCaffrey’s office revised its policies so that programs no longer would be reviewed for credit until after they had been broadcast.

In April, McCaffrey withstood a fresh round of criticism when it was disclosed that at least six major magazines and several newspapers also had met matching requirements under the 1997 legislation by publishing articles with positive drug messages.

The potential role of movies in the drug office’s campaign received virtually no discussion during the debate over the incentive program.

McCaffrey has talked before about wanting to work more closely with Hollywood to promote anti-drug messages, but a draft of his comments to be delivered today before a panel of the House Government Reform Committee suggests a far more aggressive foray into films.

Campaign to Focus on Filmmakers

Along with a broader discussion of how his agency is seeking to influence the portrayal of drug use in the media, McCaffrey plans to devote one section of his testimony to “Focusing on Filmmakers.” McCaffrey’s text says that “to impact film, the campaign will work closely with major studios, as well as the individual writers and directors, who are the driving force behind what is seen on the screen.

“Getting campaign messages in front of these individuals requires working with the organizations that represent them, such as the writers and directors guilds. We have begun this process . . . and will continue our efforts through workshops, briefings, round-tables and one-on-one conversations with industry leaders,” he said.

“Through continuous dialogue we believe we can raise awareness about how images of substance abuse in the movies impact audiences, particularly young audiences,” he said. But as protracted as the process for making movies can be, McCaffrey said, he “understands that we may not see concrete results for several years.”

McCaffrey said that he also wants to capitalize on the high visibility of movies by planning promotional links and special events once they are released. What is left unsaid in his statement, however, is whether McCaffrey plans to use financial incentives to influence the actual content of movies, as has happened in television.

Bob Weiner, a spokesman for McCaffrey, said that the White House drug office has bought a limited number of anti-drug trailer ads to be shown in theaters before movies. Although he could not provide specific figures, Weiner said that to his knowledge all of the movie studios and theater owners that screened those trailers met matching requirements by showing additional public service trailers, not by submitting claims for movies with anti-drug spins.

“But if the movies choose to do that, they can submit it to our contractors, after the movie is completed, for review for credit,” he added.

Industry Wary of Proposal

Officials on Capitol Hill and in Hollywood said they would be wary of any efforts to expand McCaffrey’s reach into the movie industry.

“This certainly raises a lot of new questions,” one congressional source said. “How is this going to be done and--given the track record [by McCaffrey’s office in TV programming] and the ambivalence out there on Capitol Hill--how will it be received?”

Andy Zahn, an executive with the DreamWorks studio who deals with political outreach issues, noted that there have been a number of efforts over the years to incorporate more positive portrayals in the movies on subjects like the environment, alcohol abuse and seat belts.

But the groups pushing those causes usually are not associated with the government, which has greater power to impose its will, he added.

“If this is something that’s not positioned as a joint cooperative effort,” he said of McCaffrey’s comments, “it will have a hard time getting any traction. Otherwise, there certainly would be some resistance.”