HOLLYWOOD DEFENDS WHITE HOUSE DRUG PACT TO CONGRESS

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Television executives told Congress Wednesday they
did not pander to the government's anti-drug campaign when they showed
officials popular TV shows containing anti-drug themes in return for cash
incentives.

Last month the issue drew national attention when online magazine
(http://Salon.com) Salon.com accused the U.S. government of inserting
anti-drug messages into popular TV programs in exchange for giving the
networks back millions of dollars worth of advertising time the government
had bought at discount prices.

Executives from ABC and CBS networks told the House of Representatives'
Committee on Commerce that the White House Office of National Drug Control
Policy (ONDCP) paid millions of dollars since 1998 in return for anti-drug
themes in popular shows like ``Cosby,'' ``The Practice'' and ``NYPD Blue.''

But the executives maintained their scripts were never influenced by,
tampered with or edited by government officials in charge of the anti-drug
pact.

``In no case have programs been produced for the purpose of receiving ONDCP
credit,'' CBS Senior Vice President Martin Franks told the hearing.

Under the program the ONDCP -- better know as the drug czar's office --
would buy advertising time from the networks to broadcast anti-drug
messages. The networks would then match that with a similar number of
public service announcements or programming which contained an anti-drug
theme.

Debate Over Government Influence

Whether or not the government's campaign influenced the creative process --
a possible interference of First Amendment rights -- has become a subject
of national debate.

Committee Chairman Tom Bliley (R-Va) said he was ``concerned that the
networks may have been happy to tilt their artistic control when
advertising time became a hot commodity.''

CBS's Franks admitted that on at least two occasions his network had shown
its television shows before they were aired in order to determine whether
they would qualify for the drug czar's incentives. But he said the network
had never altered its programming to qualify for the incentives.

Alex Wallau, president of administration and operations for ABC, said his
network had netted almost $40 million under the scheme in the 1999
television season and is scheduled to receive close to $20 million this
year.

But he noted that doing business with the government was not a cash cow,
but a public service.

``If we had not entered into our relationship with ONDCP, we would have
made at least $50 million more selling (the advertising time commercially,)
especially in today's booming advertising marketplace,'' Wallau said.

CBS no longer shows programs to the drug czar's office before airing; ABC
said it had never done so.

The arrangement began with a 1997 decision by Congress to fund a five-year,
$1 billion program to buy anti-drug advertising from TV networks at a
special, half-price rate.

Dr. Donald Vereen of the drug czar's office told the hearing, ``This is not
propaganda we are talking about.''

He defended the scheme saying youth drug use was declining, lower by 13
percent between 1997 and 1998 adding that his office had only offered
networks ``technical assistance.''

Freedom Of Speech Issues

But Robert Corn-Revere, a partner at Washington law firm Hogan and Hartson,
told the hearing that the scheme raised thorny freedom of speech issues.

``As a nation dedicated to the freedom of expression, the United States
should resist embracing the use of propaganda as an acceptable policy,
regardless of the merits of any particular message,'' Corn-Revere said.

Jef Loeb of Katsin/Loeb Advertising in San Francisco said that lack of
disclosure was a major problem with the scheme, as was the notion that the
campaign was in the national interest.

``If it's okay for the government to engage in undisclosed marketing
tactics when it comes to drugs, how about tobacco,'' he asked. ``And if
it's okay for tobacco, how about teen pregnancy ... or any of a hundred
other issues that could legitimately lay claim to be in the national
interest?''

Loeb seemed to mirror the sentiment of many members on the committee when
he summed up his testimony saying, ``In this case the wrong thing got done
for the right reason.''