D. White House Abandons Campaign To Insert Anti-Drug Messages in Media

    The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) silently terminated its controversial program of inserting anti-drug messages into prime time television programs, magazines, and theatrical films.  See Daniel Forbes, “The quiet death of prime-time propaganda,” Salon.com, June 30, 2001.  Before Bush Administration Drug Czar John Walters assumed his post, acting director Edward Jurith signed a directive on May 31, 2001, terminating the program that had resulted in adverse press coverage of the office as well as investigations by Congress and the Federal Communications Commission.

     In 1997 Congress enacted the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign Act, 23 U.S.C. Sec. 1802, to fund the purchase of public service announcements (PSAs) to combat youth drug use in the United States.  The Act required broadcast networks that accepted PSAs to provide a 100-percent pro bono match of air time designated for anti-drug ads. 

     The result was a five-year, $1-billion media campaign that ONDCP described in a 1998 press release as “the largest and most complex social-marketing campaign ever undertaken.”  According to a subsequent report in Salon.com, one important catalyst for the program was a desire by Clinton Administration Drug Czar Barry R. McCaffrey to halt local ballot initiatives approving the medical use of marijuana.  Daniel Forbes, “Fighting ‘Cheech and Chong’ medicine,” Salon.com, July 27, 2000.       At some point after the program went into effect, ONDCP and the media company participants agreed to substitute approved anti-drug messages in programming in place of the free PSAs contemplated at the beginning.  Salon.com reported that under this program government officials and their contractors began approving, and in some cases altering, the scripts of shows before they aired to conform to the government’s program goals. 

     ONDCP reportedly used a numerical formula to assign a financial value to the anti-drug messages appearing in each program: Half-hour programs that presented an approved theme received three “credits,” or the value of three 30-second ads, while hour-long programs received five credits.  The value of the credits depended on the ratings of the program that presented the approved message, creating an incentive to alter the story lines of the most popular programs.  Daniel Forbes, “Drug money,” Salon.com, Jan. 13, 2000.     Broadcast networks received approximately $25 million worth of credit for time that under the law would have been devoted to anti-drug public service announcements.  The Salon.com article named “Beverly Hills 90210,” “ER,” “Chicago Hope,” “Sports Night,” “7th Heaven,” “The Wayans Bros.,” “Cosby,” “The Smart Guy,” and “Home Improvement” as among the shows that received credit for approved themes.  The story noted that almost none of the producers and writers who crafted the anti-drug episodes were aware of the deal. 

     In a subsequent report, Salon.com revealed that at least six major magazines had submitted anti-drug articles (after initial publication) to ONDCP in an attempt to qualify for funds under the same program.  The magazines named were U.S. News & World Report, Sporting News, Family Circle, Seventeen, Parade, and USA Weekend.  Daniel Forbes, “The drug war gravy train,” Salon.com, March 31, 2000.  In 2000, ONDCP sought to expand the program to include theatrical films.  “White House enlisting Hollywood in war on drugs,” CNN.com, July 11, 2000.

     The use of the ONDCP program to reward approved messages in television programs first came to light in a series of investigative articles published in the online magazine Salon.com.  This led to significant press coverage from January 2000 until the program silently vanished in May 2001.    

     The initial press reports prompted congressional oversight hearings in both the House and Senate, including a review of the First Amendment implications of the program.  No official action was taken by the oversight committees.  In response to the hearings, however, ONDCP announced that it would discontinue the practice of reviewing scripts in advance before allowing financial credits for approved programming.   

     Separately, the FCC investigated whether the receipt of funds by broadcast networks violated Communications Act requirements regarding sponsorship identification.  The Commission concluded that the financial credits provided by ONDCP clearly were “consideration” under the law, and it directed the networks to make sponsorship announcements for rebroadcasts of programs that had received money from ONDCP.       No reason was given by ONDCP for its termination of the controversial program.  Speaking for the office, Jennifer DeVallance said that the ONDCP staff “just decided we would no longer review programs for content, and we would discontinue the pro bono match.”  The decision came, she said, “after analysis of data collected over two years.”

-- Robert Corn-Revere