`HIDDEN' ALLIANCE WAS LARGELY OUT IN THE OPEN

Like all good conspiracy theories, this one features at least a germ
of truth.

It appears that in a few instances - perhaps as few as two - the White
House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) effected changes
in the scripts of prime-time television series.

The mere fact of government involvement in TV programming is
disturbing because it raises the specters of censorship and social
engineering.

But there also is a more benign explanation than readers of Salon.com,
an online magazine, were afforded in last week's headline-making expose.

The WB network said this week that it sent scripts of episodes for two
now-defunct comedy series, ``Smart Guy'' and ``The Wayans Bros.,'' to
the drug czar's office because it sought the government's technical
expertise.

This is, to accept the innocent explanation, much as the makers of a
TV movie about an airplane crash might solicit expertise from the
National Transportation Safety Board.

Still, the extent of the ONDCP's participation in network storytelling
might be considered bothersome.

The single most documented case in the Salon expose was about a
``Smart Guy'' episode in which the show's underage lead character,
played by Tahj Mowry, drank beer at a party. The ONDCP apparently
suggested, and won, substantial changes in the depiction of the party
and the characters who induced Mowry's character to drink.

Other key aspects of the Salon report appear to be overblown or
misleading.

The story outlined a ``hidden'' alliance between the drug office and
the TV networks. In fact, the relationship was not secret.

Not-So-Hidden Relationship

Salon also said that through a complicated swap of program content for
advertising time, the networks realized a financial windfall by
packing anti-drug messages into TV shows. That doesn't appear to be
the case.

First, the secrecy question. Dr. Donald Vereen, deputy director of the
ONDCP, told reporters on Friday that the ONDCP's TV initiative was the
subject of three congressional hearings, none of them secret.

Patricia Fili-Krushel, president of ABC, said her network subsequently
organized an open, two-hour informational seminar for the ONDCP to
talk with program producers about working substance-abuse themes into
TV shows.

``We never had another discussion with our producers,'' she added.
``We did not follow up. We did not ask whether they were incorporating
these into story lines or not.''

The WB network issued press releases that noted the ``technical
assistance'' of the ONDCP in shows where it was relevant.

At the close of the ``Smart Guy'' and ``Wayans Bros.'' episodes, the
WB also inserted public service messages, featuring the shows' stars,
and publicly noting the ``technical guidance'' from the ONDCP.

Fulfilling Obligations

These moves aren't exactly indicative of an effort to hide the
networks' contacts with the drug czar's office.

Instead, they're typical of what the networks view as fulfilling
public service obligations. They're workaday examples of networks
trying to mix responsible broadcasting with public pats on their own
backs.

The allegation that the networks profited is the thorniest in the
Salon story, and requires the most explanation.

Congress authorized $1 billion for the ONDCP to buy TV advertising
over five years, beginning in 1998. The main thrust of the commercials
would be to discourage youthful drug abuse, smoking and underage drinking.

Then it got complicated. The ONDCP was required by Congress to obtain
a matching commitment from the private sector. In the case of TV
commercials, that meant the networks were to meet, dollar for dollar,
the time they sold to the government with an anti-substance abuse
effort of their own.

Finding Messages In Shows

That presumably entailed the networks setting aside free public
service announcements, or PSAs, to complement the government's paid
commercials.

But the ONDCP approved another method of meeting the matching
obligation. If the networks could demonstrate that they'd carried
anti-substance abuse themes inside their shows, they'd be given
matching credit, reducing the obligation to televise PSAs.

The ONDCP loved this approach. Getting the right messages inside TV
shows presumably would be far more effective than commercials and
PSAs. ``That means they're getting (the message) again in a different
way,'' said the ONDCP's Vereen.

Salon alleged that the networks used the programming loophole to
reclaim time from free PSAs and convert it into millions of dollars of
commercial time they could sell to regular advertisers.

In effect, this allegedly gave the networks a financial inducement to
fulfill their match by working anti-drug themes into the body of TV
shows.

Clearly the networks responded, sending scripts and cassette tapes to
the ONDCP for matching credit. Vereen said 109 programs were counted
against the match. Besides ``Smart Guy'' and ``The Wayans Bros.,''
they included ``ER,'' ``7th Heaven,'' ``Home Improvement,'' ``Chicago
Hope,'' ``Sports Night,'' ``General Hospital,'' ``Cosby,'' ``Boy Meets
World,'' ``Beverly Hills, 90210,'' ``Sabrina the Teenage Witch'' and
``The Drew Carey Show.''

But the networks deny ordering up anti-drug or anti-booze stories.
Generally speaking, they scoured their schedules for episodes that
seemed to have satisfied the requirements and sent scripts or
cassettes to the ONDCP as evidence.

Anti-Drug Stories Are Common

It couldn't have been too difficult to find anti-substance abuse story
lines that arose separately from the ONDCP initiative. The networks
air these sorts of so-called ``very special episodes'' as a matter of
course.

``At no time did we call any producers to ask them to include anti-
drug messages in their programs,'' said ABC's Fili-Krushel.

After the Salon story, the ONDCP issued a statement last weekend
saying that it had ``always assumed that any transcripts or programs
submitted for public service value qualification were final products
and not subject to further change.''

That doesn't account for the apparent script modifications to the two
WB shows, ``Smart Guy'' and ``The Wayans Bros.'' It could be that the
ONDCP regarded those situations, at least when the scripts were first
sent to it, not as match submissions but as routine requests for
technical advice. That's the explanation of Jamie Kellner, chief
executive officer of the WB network.

``The consulting has nothing to do with the match,'' he said Monday.
``The match is made by the advertising agency. ONDCP has technical
expertise in the area, and it seemed logical to us to do that. We do
that with many other groups as well.''

In its press statement, the ONDCP acknowledged that ``the creative
community has occasionally asked ONDCP to provide technical assistance
and advice on the depiction of illicit substances and issues during
its creative process. . . . ONDCP has responded to every such request.''

But what of the money? There is no credible evidence, at least not
yet, that the networks returned any recouped PSA time to their sales
departments to be sold as advertising availabilities.

The WB's Kellner said that when programs were credited for their
content, thus reducing the matching PSA obligation, the saved time
simply reverted to the network's general inventory of available PSA
and promo time.

Kellner, who was president of the Fox network before he came to the
WB, said, ``The PSA inventory comes out of our (promo) ad and PSA
pool, not our commercial pool. There's a certain number of commercial
spots we sell per hour on our shows. That's not our PSA inventory.

``Our PSA inventory comes out of a place you might see a spot for
`Felicity' promoting next Sunday's episode. So there's not an economic
benefit in that way.''

Alex Wallau, president of administration and operations at ABC, also
said his network returned none of the recaptured PSA spots to the
sales department.

The Mystery At ABC

Fili-Krushel said the ONDCP bought $45 million in advertising time on
ABC during the 1998-99 TV season, the first year of the initiative.

``We matched with $40 million worth of PSA time,'' she said. ``We
covered the rest of the match with programming by submitting cassettes
after the show had aired.''

Fili-Krushel said ABC stopped claiming matching credit for programs in
1999 because the ONDCP began asked for tapes in advance, and ABC refused.

``It wasn't something we were comfortable doing,'' she said. ``We had
a meeting internally. We decided no. I don't know the exact details of
it.''

This is one of the remaining mysteries in the controversy. No other
network noted a change in the ONDCP policy between the 1998-99 season
and the 1999-2000 season, and the ONDCP insists that it never demanded
advance scripts from anyone. There has been press speculation this
week about possible miscommunication between ABC and the drug czar's
office.

Reporters who witnessed a flustered and imprecise Vereen trying to
detail the ONDCP initiative on Friday could hardly be surprised that
the drug office might be accused of miscommunication.

It does appear, in hindsight, that what Salon ascribed to an unholy
collusion between the federal government and the TV networks actually
sprang from a long-standing network policy of mixing normal profit
with a dollop of public service.

``I understand the issue here,'' Kellner said. ``I certainly think
it's worth exploring. But from the side of the business that we come
from, we enjoy putting those messages into the shows.

``We enjoy watching our network when we feel we're doing something
that pro-social and responsible, especially because we have such a
large number of younger viewers. This is a really important issue to
us, and we've been doing this for many, many years.''