FEDERAL OFFICIALS SOUGHT TO PREVIEW SCRIPTS, ABC SAYS

TV: Executive says anti-drug office's policy change gave White House
power to influence content of programs.

A top ABC executive stoked a Washington-to-Hollywood controversy
Saturday, saying the network stopped participating in part of a
federal program after a policy change put the government in a position
to influence the content of ABC's programming.

The remarks, made by ABC Television Network President Pat Fili-Krushel
at a seasonal media gathering in Pasadena to promote ABC shows,
appeared to contradict statements earlier in the week by officials of
the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. Under the
federally funded program, networks could gain financial credits in
exchange for weaving anti-drug themes into their shows.

The issue, which emerged last week, has embarrassed both officials at
the drug policy office and the broadcast networks, all of whom are
distancing themselves from the suggestion that government officials
had a direct line to influencing network programming.

In a statement Saturday, retired Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, who heads
the drug policy office, said it would "reexamine the media campaign's
processes for assessing program content to ensure that there is
absolutely no suggestion or inference that the federal government is
exercising any control whatsoever over the creative process."

The office "does not veto, clear, or otherwise dictate the content of
network television or other programs," the statement from the
so-called drug czar added.

In the 2-year-old program, which is generating attention because many
were unaware of its existence, the government buys ad time for
anti-drug public service announcements on the networks. In turn, the
networks are required to match the dollars with their own public
service announcements. But a network can earn credits for a portion of
that time by including anti-drug story lines in its shows. ABC said it
had submitted a number of shows for credit during the 1998-99 season,
the first year in which the program was operating.

In the spring, however, ABC said it was told by Alan Levitt, director
of the anti-drug media campaign, that, instead of submitting tapes of
finished shows, this season it would be required to submit scripts
before airing them. "It wasn't something we were comfortable doing,"
Fili-Krushel said, so ABC decided to match the government ad buy
rather than seek the financial credits.

ABC said it wasn't told why the drug policy office wanted to start
seeing scripts in advance. But the policy change potentially set up a
tangled web under which the networks could feel compelled to pressure
producers to adjust plots to meet government approval. For their part,
studio executives and producers said they were unaware that the
program even existed.

Fili-Krushel's comments run counter to strong denials from rival
networks that the drug policy office sought to influence programming
by obtaining scripts in advance to monitor show content. ABC said it
was told last week that the program was being changed again and that
the network could submit finished shows instead of scripts. However,
ABC said it is still unlikely to participate in the content portion of
the plan this season.

Reached Saturday, Levitt said that "there must have been some
confusion" when he met with ABC sales executives last spring because
the policy had never been changed. "Certainly we never in any way
asked to see scripts to suggest changes for the pro bono match," he
said.

CBS continues to maintain that the independence and creative integrity
of its programming has not been compromised.

NBC and Fox echoed that response Saturday, though one network source,
reacting to Fili-Krushel's comments, said: "Every network has a
different relationship with the ONDCP."

Meanwhile, Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.), head of the 21-member House
Entertainment Task Force, said he was "deeply offended by the process
by which we would ask people to deliver scripts to any governmental
agency for review."