THE QUIET DEATH OF PRIME-TIME PROPAGANDA

With no fanfare, the White House drug office pulls the plug on its
controversial program to pay TV networks for putting anti-drug
messages in popular shows.

The White House program to financially reward television networks for
anti-drug messages embedded in sitcoms and dramas was born in
secrecy, achieved stunning midlife notoriety and now has been quietly
terminated.

The acting director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy,
Edward Jurith, signed a directive May 31 killing the program, first
revealed by Salon in January 2000.

Jurith's decision closes a controversial chapter in the government's
efforts to combat drug abuse with a pricey advertising campaign. In
1997, Congress appropriated more than $1 billion for an anti-drug
advertising effort; it included a "pro bono match" component in which
networks agreed to sell their advertising for half-price. Soon, with
ad rates going up thanks to the booming economy, networks were
looking for creative ways to meet their government obligations, and
they agreed to insert anti-drug messages in prime-time shows -- from
"ER" to "Drew Carey" to "Smart Guy" -- in exchange for freeing up ad
time they could then sell to higher-paying private clients.

The networks earned an estimated $25 million for placing anti-drug
and anti-alcohol messages in prime-time programming. Salon's
disclosure of the program and its extent sparked angry congressional
hearings and negative coverage and editorials in newspapers
nationwide.

ONDCP spokeswoman Jennifer DeVallance told Salon that the media
campaign staff "just decided we would no longer review programs for
content, and we would discontinue the pro bono match."

DeVallance said the recommendation was made to acting director Jurith
"after analysis of data collected over two years." She declined to
describe the data, as did other ONDCP officials. The media campaign's
director, Alan Levitt, refused to talk to Salon.

It is unclear whether the two Republican House subcommittee chairmen
with direct funding oversight of the media campaign were aware of the
ONDCP's decision. Spokespersons for both Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind.,
who chairs the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and
Human Resources, which authorized funding for the media campaign, and
Rep. Ernest Istook Jr., R-Okla., who chairs the Subcommittee on
Treasury, Postal Service and General Government, which determined
funding levels, declined repeated requests for comment on whether
either representative knew the program had been terminated.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., ranking Democrat on the drug policy
subcommittee, said he felt blind-sided by the decision. Cummings said
neither he nor his two top staffers were informed about it. "As the
ranking member, for me not to know shows utter disregard for the
Democratic Party and myself and my colleagues," he said. Despite the
controversy surrounding the program, Cummings said he felt "pretty
comfortable" with it. And he believes anti-drug messages in
programming are more effective than those in ads. "That's why the
change is so upsetting to me -- because I thought it was a creative
way to send a clear message," he said. Cummings plans to call for a
hearing to investigate why the program was canceled.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., a member of the drug policy subcommittee
who follows drug issues closely, was not informed of the ONDCP's
decision by either the White House or the chairman of her
subcommittee, according to spokesperson Nadeam Elshami, who said the
silence was unusual.

The timing of such a move by acting director Jurith accomplishes
several ends for the Bush administration. It is unusual, considering
the widely publicized expectation that John Walters would soon be
nominated as drug czar, for an acting director to take such a step,
though Jurith is a respected career civil servant. But it allows
Walters to avoid a potentially messy inaugural decision. The covert
propaganda campaign had its champions on Capitol Hill, and Jurith's
action saves Walters from having to make enemies early.

But Jurith probably would not have dared to act without Walters'
tacit approval. "It's highly unlikely Jurith would have made such a
decision without clearing it with the incoming director, " says Keith
Stroup of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
"It's possible that Walters asked Jurith to fall on his sword."
Longtime drug policy observers say the program's cancellation is more
likely the result of frank political calculation than of Bush
administration scruples about keeping the media free of government
propaganda.

There were questions about how well the program was working and
whether it was being fairly administered. In fact, just last week,
the Government Accounting Office issued a report on allegations that
Ogilvy & Mather, the advertising agency that administered the
campaign for the ONDCP, falsified billing records for the program
after the contract failed to meet the agency's revenue projections in
1999. The GAO concluded that Ogilvy altered timesheets on 3,100 hours
of questionable work billed to the government and also overcharged
for contract employees, and that ONDCP failed to rectify obvious
billing problems and contract irregularities.

ONDCP spokeswoman DeVallance acknowledged that terminating the
program serves to "eliminate misunderstandings." Prior to Jurith's
decision a month ago, she said, "some" TV shows received financial
credit for government-approved content this television season. She
refused to specify which.

Although the ONDCP is within the executive office of the president
and reports to Bush, White House spokesman Jimmy Orr referred all
questions about the decision to the drug policy office. Democrat
Cummings, however, said it was unlikely the decision was made
independently of top Bush administration officials. "I don't see how
he could make such a significant change without some kind of
authority from the White House," he said.

The inspiration to spend tax dollars on anti-drug propaganda came
from Clinton drug czar Barry McCaffrey, shortly after the passage of
ballot initiatives on medical marijuana in California and Arizona in
1996. McCaffrey considered the medical marijuana initiatives a
stalking horse for drug legalization, and he concluded that the
government needed its own ad campaign to combat pro-drug messages.

NORML filed a formal complaint with the Federal Communications
Commission in February 2000 after the dollars-for-content scheme was
disclosed. In December 2000, the FCC issued a ruling chiding the
government and directing it to follow the FCC's "concurrent notice"
requirements. That is, under the Federal Communications Act,
television programs that receive direct or indirect financial
incentives have to indicate that fact at the time of broadcast. No
fines were imposed, but the FCC did state that "listeners and viewers
are entitled to know by whom they are being persuaded."

In the end, the controversy over the scheme hobbled McCaffrey and
reduced his effectiveness. "Given the totally negative press and
editorializing across the country, McCaffrey was out there alone, and
this really weakened him," said Kevin Zeese, president of Common
Sense for Drug Policy.

Still, there's little doubt that messages embedded in programming are
more effective than overt advertising. Clearly, they stand a somewhat
better chance of causing some kid to reject a joint headed his way at
a party. That's because viewers enthralled by an emotionally
compelling program tend to lower the "defensive screen" that filters
out advertising messages, says professor Philip Plamgreen of the
University of Kentucky, who helped design and evaluate the ONDCP's
media campaign. A message "embedded in a good story line reduces
counterarguing because viewers are so wrapped up in the story,"
Plamgreen told Salon in 1999. "One program segment might have the
effectiveness of millions of dollars of paid advertising. [It]
doesn't raise defenses in most cases. It's not perceived as someone
overtly trying to change your mind."

While paid programming messages are gone for now, the government
hasn't entirely given up its efforts to enlist Hollywood in anti-drug
efforts. According to New York journalist Preston Peet, the ONDCP
currently has an $800,000 deal to run banner ads on 'N Sync's Web
site and to feature a filmed ad at each of the 45 shows on the
group's current tour. In the filmed ad, group members speak of
activities such as mind reading, attending scary movies and even
playing tiddlywinks as their own "anti-drugs."

What's more, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
is getting into the act with an annual $300,000 grant available to
nonprofit or government agencies to "foster Hollywood leadership
support for national public health priorities which include ...
promoting accurate depictions of healthy living at all stages of
life." Renewable over five years, the aim of CDC program No. 61470 is
"coordinating strategic placement of public health storylines and
messages in entertainment programming including daytime and prime
time television dramas."

About the writer Daniel Forbes is a New York freelancer who writes on
social policy and the media.