There's a new battlefront in the White House war on drugs. Daniel Forbes. Forbes, 44, is the freelancer who recently authored two big stories for the online magazine Salon ( http://www.salon.com ) that revealed a controversial financial link between the media and the government's antidrug campaign. Now he's the focus of a heated dispute between the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) - which is asking Salon to disclose Forbes's "bias" against the drug war - and Salon, whose editor accuses the ONDCP of "coming close to Nixonian behavior in trying to nail the messenger ..." [continues 1656 words]
Magazines Ran Items To Get Government Ads The White House has spent more than $1-billion (U.S.) in a five-year propaganda and advertising effort to make its tough war-on-drugs policies palatable - and part of that money appears to be paying for articles inserted in major magazines available on Canadian newsstands. Two months after major U.S. TV networks admitted they wrote prime-time scripts supporting antidrug policies in exchange for government advertising deals, documents show that editors of major magazines such as Seventeen and Family Circle have produced articles approved by the White House to attract similar advertising contracts. [continues 590 words]
Recruiting America's Superheroes For A Comic Battle. In 1998 President Clinton introduced a five-year, $ 1 billion program aimed at keeping kids off drugs. The program sought to coordinate the efforts of local police, federal agents, advertising executives, school administrators, teachers and parents. It allowed White House officials to insert antidrug rhetoric into TV shows. With that much manpower, you'd think drug czar Barry McCaffrey would feel confident he had everything necessary to end drug abuse. Apparently not. He needed another weapon, one larger than the powers of Washington and schools and the police combined. So who did McCaffrey enlist in the fight against the ultimate evil? Spider-Man. [continues 1265 words]
WASHINGTON - Members of a Senate appropriations subcommittee vowed Thursday to end the White House's policy of giving millions of dollars in advertising credits to TV networks in return for placing anti-drug messages in their programs. Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Colo., chairman of a subcommittee that oversees White House spending, said he was shocked to learn the Clinton administration's drug policy office had freed the networks from obligations to air millions of dollars worth of antidrug public service announcements. The practice smacked of government censorship and gave a financial windfall to the networks, which could resell the public service time for commercials, Campbell complained. [continues 629 words]
WASHINGTON, Jan. 19 - The White House has announced that it will stop scrutinizing scripts of television shows under a widely criticized financial agreement with the networks that had encouraged them to include antidrug messages in the plots of programs. As part of the two-year-old arrangement, White House drug policy officials reviewed more than 100 episodes of shows like "E.R." and "Beverly Hills 90210" before they appeared. White House drug policy officials announced that they would continue to reward networks for showing programs with strong antidrug themes, but they said they would not review the programs' content until they had been shown. [continues 519 words]
It's a form of "mind control," protests Harvard media eminence Bill Kovach. "Insidious," shudders former Federal Communications Commission counsel Robert Corn-Revere. "The most craven thing I've heard of yet," hollers Andrew Jay Schwartzman of the Media Access Project. The New York Times editorial page says the "deeply unhealthy" practice "should disturb anyone who believes in the need for all media. . . to remain free from government meddling." Good heavens, what could this insidious, deeply unhealthy form of governmental mind control possibly be? It's nothing more than broadcast television networks working with the Office of National Drug Control Policy (familiarly known as the "drug czar's" office) on an entirely voluntary basis to coordinate antidrug messages in their shows. [continues 886 words]
It's a form of "mind control,'' protests Harvard media eminence Bill Kovach. "Insidious," shudders former Federal Communications Commission counsel Robert Corn Revere. "The most craven thing I've heard of yet," hollers Andrew Jay Schwartzman of the Media Access Project. The New York Times editorial page says the "deeply unhealthy" practice "should disturb anyone who believes in the need for all media. . . to remain free from government meddling." Good heavens, what could this insidious, deeply unhealthy form of governmental mind control possibly be? It's nothing more than broadcast television networks working with the Office of National Drug Control Policy (familiarly known as the "drug czar's" office) on an entirely voluntary basis to coordinate antidrug messages in their shows. [continues 923 words]
A government-sponsored antidrug campaign has centered on major television networks, but the White House drug office also used federal advertising dollars with other outlets, including Internet company America Online Inc. and comic hero Spider-Man, to push its message. Under a $1 billion, five-year spending program, the government buys antidrug advertising mostly on television, in return for which the networks provide matching free ad time or agree to include antidrug messages within entertainment shows. The federal program caused an uproar last week when it was revealed that scripts of some TV programs had been submitted for review to the drug office and that changes in the shows' content had been made in a few cases. [continues 644 words]
The White House's drug-crime fighter said he will review a controversial government program that gives television networks financial inducements for antidrug messages in their entertainment shows. The major TV networks steadfastly maintained that they hadn't given the government any control over content of their shows by submitting scripts or finished programs to the White House drug office. But ABC Television also said it will no longer seek government credit for including antidrug themes in its entertainment shows. The credits reduced the number of free public-service commercials the broadcasters are expected to provide under a $1 billion spending plan for antidrug advertising approved by Congress in 1997. For every paid ad, the networks were to provide a free one, but the number of free ads could be reduced if programs submitted to the drug office contained antidrug messages. Networks then could profit by selling the returned commercial time to paying customers. [continues 813 words]
Just in case you hadn't noticed the steady erosion of the whole concept of integrity in American life, along comes the story of paid antidrug propaganda in TV series. The deal began in 1997 when Congress approved a five-year, $1 billion television ad campaign that required networks to sell the government time for the anti-drug spots at half price, according to Daniel Forbes of Salon magazine. But with the economy roaring and demand for advertising time deliriously high, the networks weren't wild about giving it up so cheaply. [continues 377 words]
The White House has found a new way to spread its antidrug message: slip it into some of the nation's most popular prime-time TV programs. Thursday, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy said that for more than a year it has been working with TV networks to get them to weave antidrug messages into the dialogue of some of their regular shows. So far, the government says, antidrug themes have found their way into such highly rated shows as "ER," "Chicago Hope" and "Home Improvement." In some cases, the networks even submitted scripts to the drug czar's office for review. [continues 883 words]
Americans pride themselves on their independent press. Yet some media outlets and networks are compromising their autonomy and objectivity by welcoming the federal government as a major paying advertiser. This alarming union is the latest outgrowth of the "war on drugs," and the launch of a new $775 million White House campaign to promote its objectives through television, radio, and print advertising. The message to media moguls is simple: Promote the continuation of the drug war in advertisements, editorial content, and features, and we, as federal officials, will reimburse you by spending millions of taxpayer dollars for ads. The better government mouthpiece you are the more advertising space we will buy. [continues 1516 words]
Feds to Teens: Just Say No, Dude The strangest site on the Internet has to be freevibe.com. Check it out if you're skeptical, and read the bizarre postings about the dangers of illegal drugs. They are written in the style of Seventeen magazine, in which grown-ups pepper their prose with the buzzwords of youth, like, uh, cool, man. But you could browse a long time and learn all about young Jake in the grip of addiction, "tabbing acid during basketball games," before discovering that the man behind the site is in fact The Man. [continues 743 words]
The Partnership for a Drug-Free America wholeheartedly supports the concept of developing a national advertising campaign targeting underage drinking. But your June 16 editorial misses the essence of our concerns regarding an amendment to the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. You can target illegal drugs with advertising. Backed by the proper research, you can do the same for underage drinking. But you cannot do both effectively with the current federal appropriation. That's the issue. The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign is backed by $185 million in federal funds. The alcohol industry spends billions on marketing and promotion each year. It doesn't take a marketing genius to understand that to compete effectively in the marketplace, it would require hundreds of millions more to change teenage attitudes about drinking. A campaign targeting underage drinking will require significantly more funding. If Congress wants to ensure the effectiveness of the antidrug campaign, it must not ask it to do more than it was originally designed to do. WILLIAM J. BENNETT MARIO M. CUOMO CoChairman, Partnership for a Drug-Free America New York [end]
On Capitol Hill, Pressure Mounts To Include Underage Drinking In $1 Billion Campaign. College-bound Brendan Brogan feels fortunate. Back when he was 14, the New Jersey teen survived a night of binge-drinking that left him hospitalized. Four years later, Mr. Brogan is urging the government to help millions of other youths avoid the same mistake by including alcohol warnings in a major new campaign against drug abuse. So far, he has failed - but not for lack of compelling arguments. [continues 738 words]
Congress: Underage drinking, more prevalent than marijuana use,isn't part of the national drug policy. Evidence abounds that beer is more popular with adolescents than marijuana.Yet while the government is spending $195 million this year on its national media campaign to dissuade adolescents from using illicit drugs, not a penny of the appropriated tax dollars goes to warn about the dangers of drinking. So this month, Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, D-Los Angeles, introduced an amendment allowing underage drinking to be included among the advertising campaign's targets. Her effort has not pleased beer wholesalers, some other members of Congress or even the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy. [continues 776 words]
Evidence abounds that beer is more popular with adolescents than marijuana. Yet while the government is spending $195 million this year on its national media campaign to dissuade adolescents from using illicit drugs, not a penny of the appropriated tax dollars goes to warn about the dangers of drinking. So this month, Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment allowing underage drinking to be included among the advertising campaign's targets. Her effort has not pleased beer wholesalers, some other members of Congress or even the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy. [continues 450 words]
Evidence abounds that beer is more popular with adolescents than marijuana. Yet while the government is spending $195 million this year on its national media campaign to dissuade adolescents from using illicit drugs, not a penny of the appropriated tax dollars goes to warn about the dangers of drinking. So this month, Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, D-Calif., introduced an amendment allowing underage drinking to be included among the advertising campaign's targets. Her effort has not pleased beer wholesalers, some other members of Congress or even the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy. [continues 1167 words]
Evidence abounds that beer is more popular with adolescents than marijuana. Yet while the government is spending $195 million this year on its national media campaign to dissuade adolescents from using illicit drugs, not a penny of the appropriated tax dollars goes to warn about the dangers of drinking. So this month, Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, D-Calif., introduced an amendment to include underage drinking in the advertising campaign's targets. Her effort has not pleased beer wholesalers, some other members of Congress or even the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy. [continues 690 words]
Health: L.A. lawmaker seeks to expand antidrug blitz out of concern for Mexican Americans. Sellers' group decries attack on 'legal product.' The alcohol industry has launched a vigorous counteroffensive to a move afoot in Congress to include antialcohol messages as part of the federal government's five year, $1 billion youth antidrug advertising blitz. Efforts to include more ads against underage drinking began when Rep. Lucille RoybalAllard (D-Los Angeles), concerned about high rates of problem drinking among Mexican American men, questioned why alcohol messages are not part of the government's paid media efforts to combat substance abuse. [continues 411 words]