BOUGHT AND SOLD: DRUG WARRIORS AND THE MEDIA

Americans pride themselves on their independent press.
Yet some media outlets and networks are compromising their autonomy
and objectivity by welcoming the federal government as a major paying
advertiser. This alarming union is the latest outgrowth of the "war on
drugs," and the launch of a new $775 million White House campaign to
promote its objectives through television, radio, and print
advertising. The message to media moguls is simple: Promote the
continuation of the drug war in advertisements, editorial content, and
features, and we, as federal officials, will reimburse you by spending
millions of taxpayer dollars for ads. The better government mouthpiece
you are the more advertising space we will buy.

Not surprisingly, America's print and television media hierarchy are lining
up for a slice of the pie. Last fall, the board of directors of the Magazine
Publishers of America announced their participation in the federal
crusade, dubbed the "National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign," by
agreeing to run "compelling ads in their magazines and providing
editorial support for their audiences."

Their decision came immediately after a meeting with White House drug czar
Barry McCaffrey, who urged the industry to begin a "nationwide anti-drug
publishing strategy." McCaffrey found the MPA more than willing. "[We]
accept the challenge presented to the magazine industry by the General
[Barry McCaffrey] to join with the Ad Council, the Partnership for a
Drug-Free America, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy
[ONDCP]," a spokesperson for the MPA board of directors announced
following the drug czar's visit. "The MPA will use its best efforts to
coordinate member participation in a national magazine 'roadblock' . .
. to raise the level of awareness of the campaign among parents and
kids."

Disturbing Implications

The implications of the publishing industry's new alliance with the federal
government are disturbing. Michael Hoyt, senior editor for the Columbia
Journalism Review, warns that the industry's involvement sacrifices
credibility and journalistic integrity. "I don't think that the MPA should
be urging members to provide editorial support for anything at all," he says.

"And it doesn't matter how worthy they think the cause is. That's
particularly true where there can be a perceived conflict of interest, such
as urging that support in return for tax dollars." Indeed, federal
officials made it clear that the MPA's portion of the White House's
war chest hinged on its willingness to espouse the government's party
line. "We want . . . the magazine industry to be a critical player in
this effort," McCaffrey told the publishing heads. "However, . . . we
have yet to determine exactly how much of the roughly $775 million ad
dollars will go to magazines . . . . That proportion depends on your
response.

If you deliver the commitment of your industry, we will provide the
[financial] resources necessary to deliver the message on your pages."
As expected, the drug czar's bribe achieved the desired union.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time the media have enlisted in
this governmental campaign.

Previously, the National Association of Broadcasters announced that it
would cooperate with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
and the advertising conglomerate Partnership for a Drug-Free America
to launch a nationwide television campaign demonizing marijuana's
alleged dangers.

The ABC television network also broadcast a month-long federally
backed anti-drug media blitz two years ago that raised eyebrows among
many media critics. "All of us can benefit from an honest message
about the risks of substance abuse, but it must be credible," wrote
national columnist Robert Scheer, who called the earlier
ABC/Partnership for a Drug-Free America effort "a propaganda
campaign." "The government-sanctioned anti-drug message, inserted by
corporate fiat into all [ABC] programming, including news, criticizes
only those vices that are not legally profitable, while the network's
advertising continues to glorify those that are. Surely, those sales
people at ABC know that a warning that is transparently dishonest is
worse than useless." Apparently not. Today, the White House
drug-control office is one of ABC's best-paying clients.

ABC accepted over $14 million in paid ads from the ONDCP in the first
five months of the federal advertising campaign, more than twice as
much as any other network. ABC also combined efforts with Disney
Online to establish the drug propaganda Web site, Freevibe.com, which
targets visitors with baseless drug "facts" like: "Pot turns people
into potheads." This statement, like most others appearing on this and
other government-influenced sites, conveniently ignores the science
exonerating marijuana of such "reefer madness" inspired allegations.

For example, visitors will find no mention of a May 1999 John Hopkins
University cognition study, the first ever to investigate the
long-term effects of marijuana on mental function in a large
epidemiological sample, that found "no significant differences in
cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and nonusers of
cannabis." The White House drug control office spent an additional
$5.5 million on Fox, $1.8 million on NBC, $600,000 on CBS, and
$800,000 on the WB Network, according to USA Today columnist Melanie
Wells. In return, the major networks "donated" $24.4 million of free
air time to promote the feds' political antidrug agenda.

This public-private partnership makes the White House campaign one of
the top 15 single-brand campaigns in the nation, even outspending (in
unadjusted dollars) the public service campaign run during World War
II in support of the war effort. Tom Haines, chairman of the
drug-policy alternatives group Partnership for Responsible Drug
Information, denounces the emerging alliance among the government and
media as a threat to America's free press. "We are seeing the
unification of the business end of the media community and the
government for an advocacy campaign where only one point of view is
coming across," he says. "If this were happening in any other country,
it would be denounced as propaganda."

Shifting Roles

Also critical is New York Times writer Frank Rich, one of the few
columnists to question the shifting roles of the government and the media.

This new ad campaign "may introduce a new economic model to the long
and tortured history of the drug war," he wrote in a syndicated column.
"Where we once had companies that laundered drug money, we now have
corporations synergizing anti-drug money."

One thing is for certain, as long as there are dollars to go around, expect
the networks and much of the Fourth Estate to keep buying. "One of the most
surprising results we've seen has been the tremendous response by the media
and entertainment industry," Alan Levitt, who oversees advertising for the
ONDCP, said in a recent interview. "They're willing to listen to what we're
saying . . . and they [are] willing to change storylines."
Such may have been the case last spring when the NBC show "Hang Time" aired
an ONDCP-friendly episode regarding marijuana. "When kids and teens across
the nation tuned into the popular TV show, they saw a group of high
schoolers catch their friends smoking marijuana, witnessed the negative
consequences of drug use, and saw some real friends convince their pal to
get help," the drug czar's office bragged after NBC aired the show,
declaring the network had "adopted" the prevention theme in their
broadcasts. Other NBC shows followed suit, including "One World," "City
Guys," and "Saved by the Bell: The New Class," each emphasizing the
"negative consequences" of drug use. The network and the White House also
combined efforts to produce and distribute "study guide" pamphlets to public
high-school students.

Teachers were encouraged to use the materials as a basis for
initiating drug "education" classroom discussions. "The programming
and surrounding activities were made possible by a unique
collaboration among the ONDCP [and] NBC television . . . arising from
the powerful messages of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign,"
the White House summarized. Is the campaign really propaganda rather
than good science?

The federal government's marijuana policy has long been based on
propaganda. Government witnesses advocated passage of America's first
prohibitive federal marijuana law in 1937 by telling Congress that
marijuana consumption inevitably causes violence, insanity, and death
among users. In different eras, various other myths have gained
prominence (marijuana kills brain cells, marijuana causes
amotivational syndrome, marijuana harms sexual maturation and
reproduction, and so on), but few have been abandoned. Indeed, many of
the reefer madness" tales that were used today to generate support for
early anti-marijuana laws continue to appear in the government's media
campaign and bureaucratic reports today, despite scientific studies
demonstrating the contrary.

For example, just one month after the May 1999 National Academy of
Sciences Institute of Medicine report concluded that marijuana
withdrawal symptoms evidenced in humans are "mild and subtle," the
federal National Institute on Drug Abuse said that marijuana smokers
who abstain from the drug become aggressive. Assertions like those
form the backbone of the federal anti-drug campaign, while
non-government studies that fail to find deleterious or toxic effects
from marijuana and other drugs are ignored. The unholy
taxpayer-financed alliance arising among federal drug warriors and the
media threatens to usher an unparalleled campaign of government
propaganda into our homes, lives, and public schools.

In addition, by waving taxpayer dollars, federal officials are
presenting many within the Fourth Estate with a conflict of interest
that threatens not only their credibility and objectivity, but also
their ability to maintain a proper role as a watchdog over big
government and its policies.

How likely is the media to question the drug-war party line when the
warriors are some of their biggest advertisers? The feds are spending
$775 million of your hard-earned dollars to find out.