TV CONTENT FOR SALE: GOVERNMENT BUYS ANTI-DRUG MESSAGES

The best propaganda is invisible. By that standard, the White House Office
of National Drug Control Policy has been conducting a wildly successful
public relations operation. For two years the agency has paid the television
networks to feature anti-drug themes in their programs. Viewers have been
unaware that their favorite dramas and comedies are reviewed in advance by
government officials or that these officials pass out lucrative Brownie
points to networks whose programs they like.

None of this is secret, exactly. Gen. Barry McCaffrey, head of the drug
policy office, described the cozy arrangement in an open hearing by a House
appropriations subcommittee last October. But neither the television
networks nor the Clinton administration has sought to draw attention to
their cooperative script work. The online magazine Salon first drew public
attention to the practice, and then newspapers across the country picked up
the story.

The government reviews started in 1997, after Congress funded a massive
anti-drug advertising campaign. Television networks were required to provide
air time for the anti-drug ads at a 50 percent discount - two ads for the
price of one. This requirement cut into the amount of air time the networks
could sell at the regular price.

So McCaffrey's office offered a deal: Networks that included anti-drug
messages in their programs could earn credits to offset the ad discount
requirement. An anti-drug story line in an hour-long prime time drama, for
instance, would be worth five 30-second spots. The time that would have been
needed for those five half-price public service announcements could then be
sold at full price to other advertisers. Over the past two years the
networks have saved $22 million by putting anti-drug messages into their
programs rather than running them as commercials.

The drug policy office sees nothing wrong with this practice. "I guess we
plead guilty to using every lawful means of saving America's children," a
spokesman told The New York Times. And the networks claim they never gave
the federal agency control over program content. They didn't need to
surrender control: It was clear from the start what types of programming
would be rewarded.

No one objects to effective anti-drug messages. But there's reason to be
concerned when the government and the networks collaborate to disguise their
advertising as programming and present it to viewers without identifying its
source. The credibility of both the government and the networks is
undermined. The impact of an anti-drug story line melts away if viewers find
out they've been subjected to a government-approved campaign to shape public
opinion. And that disillusionment quickly transforms into cynicism: If a TV
drama presents a tax auditor in a positive light, should viewers suspect
that the network is taking money or favors from the IRS?

The lines between advertising and program content are already badly blurred,
with companies paying to have their goods displayed in TV shows and
in-character actors hawking products in commercials. But the
multimillion-dollar deal between McCaffrey's office and the networks goes
even further. Americans have been funding and watching government-approved
anti-drug messages without knowing it. Even with the best of intentions, the
government should not manipulate its people, nor the networks their
audience, as has been done here.