NEWS CONTENT FOR SALE

Channel One Loses Credibility When It Profits From Allowing Anti-Drug
Propaganda To Be Inserted Into The News Reports It Prepares For U.S.
Schoolchildren.

Critics concerned about the impact of Channel One -- the company that put
television sets in schools and broadcasts commercials for unhealthful
drinks and snacks along with news programming -- have something new to
worry about. Captive-audience children in thousands of schools across the
nation aren't just being exposed to a couple of minutes of commercials
along with their "three Rs." It turns out they are also getting a helping
of government propaganda.

The White House Office of National Drug Conrol Policy, home of the drug
czar, is compensating Channel One whenever it airs approved anti-drug
messages in its news reports. While the notion of discouraging school
children from using illicit drugs is a positive one, it shouldn't be
accomplished through government financial incentives to manipulate news
content.

This disturbing collaboration is part of the federal anti-drug program
exposed last year by the online magazine Salon.com. In 1997, Congress
approved nearly $1-billion for anti-drug advertising. The law stipulated
that all advertising ONDCP bought must be sold at half price. For every ad
ONDCP purchased, another would have to be provided free of charge. For
television networks and magazines, this was an expensive proposition, but
there was a loophole. Media outlets were allowed to exchange programming
and editorial content with approved anti-drug messages for the free ads.

Television networks and magazines happily participated by submitting
content they thought would satisfy the evaluators at the ONDCP and reduce
the number of free ads owed the government. Some television shows even sent
their scripts to the ONDCP for prior approval. But as unsettling as it is
for the government to be rewarding producers of The Practice for a
sufficiently uncool depiction of a drug user, it is far more insidious to
be paying news outlets when they do the same.

According to Salon.com, Channel One sent 10 news segments to ONDCP from
August 2000 to January 2001, but only one was credited as "on message."
However, from February to May 2001, seven of 11 news segments submitted by
Channel One were approved.

Obviously, the company had figured out how to be more "on message" with its
drug reporting. According to the magazine's report, Channel One was able to
recoup more than $3-million in free ads in a single school year.

ONDCP invests heavily in advertising on Channel One because it provides a
direct link to a target audience of young people ages 11 to 18. Each daily
show, consisting of 10 minutes of news and two minutes of commercials,
reaches more teens than any television show on prime time. But apparently
it is not just those four 30-second commercial slots that are for sale; the
news content is, too.

This is a sure-fire way to make young people more cynical of the news media
and more detached from current events. If they think the government is
using Channel One to present a distorted picture of the drug problem, whose
news are they going to trust?

By dangling hundreds of millions of advertising dollars at the
entertainment and news industries, the government has bought itself a
behind-the-scenes role in directing our culture. One would expect this kind
of subterfuge in totalitarian countries, but it should have no place here.

In the meantime, Channel One's role as the news organ for our schools
should be re-evaluated. The company has compromised its credibility by
having an influential government patron. The perception that Channel One
might have altered its news content to please ONDCP evaluators is
irreconcilable with journalistic ethics and it should no longer be held up
as an objective newscast for our nation's schools.