Hindsight from The New Gun Week
March 1, 2000
Let's Make a Deal on Propaganda
by Joseph P. Tartaro,
Executive Editor
Do you know what the acronym ONDCP represents?
If you don't, there's no reason to feel bad. Most Americans wouldn't have a clue if the full name of the government agency wasn't used somewhere in a news story.
ONDCP stands for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.
Currently that agency, Congress and the major television networks are involved in a significant tussle that concerns government involvement in formulating program content by playing money games with the TV industry.
Quite a few Americans who know about the deal consider it an infringement of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
What is especially curious about this case is that some media executives and some of their liberal friends-people who frequently use the First Amendment to trash the Second-have demonstrated that they really don't worry too much about their First Amendment rights when money is involved.
However, this situation has once again made strange political bedfellows. A significant number of liberal congresspersons, including several who have never supported the Second Amendment, are now in league with pro-gun conservatives in criticizing the ONDCP deal. Many of them have been faithful friends of the Clinton Administration, who suddenly find themselves in opposition-on a constitutional question.
Salon Blows Whistle
Here's what happened, according to a report first published in the on-line Salon magazine on Jan. 13.
Salon reported that the White House worked out a deal with TV executives that allowed the networks to sell advertising time they would otherwise have had to use to run free anti-drug messages in exchange for allowing the ONDCP to review program content to insure that satisfactory anti-drug content was included in programming.
The original arrangement stemmed from Congress' 1997 approval of a program to buy anti-drug ads on TV. Networks were required to match each dollar spent by the federal government, either with free ads or in other ways, such as demonstrating that some of their programs convey anti-drug messages. Congress has provided $1 billion over five years for the purchase of anti-drug TV ads, provided the networks aired two free ads for every one the government purchased.
In its most benign form, the new White House deal would have meant that the networks would show programs to the ONDCP after the fact, and get credit for the free time if the program was adequately anti-drug.
But that isn't what started to come out as other journalists began to explore the deal. And one network executive said his corporation made $40 million on the deal in 1999.
Some of the networks revealed that they had submitted scripts to the ONDCP for approval before the programs were produced. This immediately raised the specter of White House censorship of programming material.
Advance Script Submissions
A CBS executive said that was not the case. They were merely submitting the scripts in advance to see if they would qualify for a program that released the free ad time for sale by the network. They also suggested that the anti-drug messages in the programs were ones that writers and producers were already planning on incorporating in their scripts.
But no one explained if the scripts were re-written along ONDCP guidelines, if they did not qualify.
Now a lot of the people involved, including critics of the new White House approach, are as anti-drug as anyone. However, they saw this quid pro quo in which the networks would have more ad-time inventory to sell as an incentive that shaped TV programs as propaganda. They also feared for the precedent that was being set. Today anti-drug programming, tomorrow, what?
Members of Congress grew concerned and Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-LA), chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection, scheduled hearings.
"I think we have stepped incredibly far and hard on the First Amendment," said Tauzin, according to Associated Press.
House Commerce Committee Chair Tom Bliley (R-VA) said he was "concerned that the networks may have been happy to tilt their artistic control when advertising time became a hot commodity."
The White House's ONDCP said it was only trying to spread an anti-drug message to more young people by letting broadcasters get financial credits for eligible programming.
At the congressional hearing, Dr. Donald Vereen Jr., deputy director of ONDCP, said "We've never intruded in the creative process."
He offered samples of several shows-including "Cosby"-that qualified for credits because of an anti-drug message.
Policy Reprehensible
Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the non-profit Media Access Project, had this to say about the deal, according to The Washington Post:
"The idea of the government attempting to influence public opinion covertly is reprehensible beyond words. It's one thing to appropriate money to buy ads, another thing to spend the money to influence the public subliminally. And it's monstrously selfish and irresponsible on the part of the broadcasters."
The White House drug office recently established new rules to clarify that the government will not review program scripts for credits until after they have been aired.
That may quiet some critics. But it will not assure that some bureaucrat in the future, with or without the explicit approval of an elected official, will not come up with some future scheme to use the popular media to covertly influence public attitudes on any subject, including guns.
According to syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, President Clinton and his spokesmen were asked whether the vetting of scripts might not be extended to equally worthwhile messages about "gun control" and "youth violence." And, why not to recycling, ethnic tolerance, charitable giving and the correct use of the fork, Krauthammer added.
Press Secretary Joe Lockhart was defiant, according to the columnist. He reported that Lockhart said they were "looking for other ways to get the (anti-drug) message out that allows networks in a robust advertising environment to sell other people where they can make more money."
Not all columnists have taken as dim of view of the prospect of the government corrupting the entertainment industry as Krauthammer. But then, not everyone in the entertainment industry is in favor of the White House deal.
The bosses of several studios that produce prime-time TV shows for the networks apparently were caught off guard by the revelation of the deal the White House had cut with the networks. According to Associated Press, they were angry to discover that the networks were working with the White House drug policy advisor to insert anti-drug messages into programs.
Five studio heads told AP that they didn't know the networks had been offered financial incentives by the government if certain programs would preach against drugs.
Inappropriate"I think it's appalling," said Gail Berman, president of Regency Television. "It's inappropriate for government to participate in this way in the production of television."
Some liberal commentators, however, saw no danger in the ONDCP scheme, and even suggested that those who screamed about the First Amendment were some kind of paranoiacs. Probably like gunowners.
The anti-gun Washington Post, however, was not among the liberal media condoning the Clinton Administration financial deal with the TV network operators.
"By all means, let the President push for responsible and accurate portrayals of drug abuse," The Post editorialized. "Let the drug policy director provide information on the subject to those who make television shows. But the government crosses a line when it uses financial incentives to influence or reward networks for the content of the shows themselves."
Many of our readers probably believe that those kinds of deals were cut long ago. After all, the TV and movie industry often relies on government approval for the use of public buildings, lands, military equipment, etc.
Squeezing the producers of movies and TV, even for the most worthy cause, is still saying the ends justify the means. Be that as it may, the Founding Fathers understood human nature and didn't want the government in control of speech, press, religion-or guns.
One final question: If this was such a good deal that the White House and network executives had worked out, how come they didn't explain it to everyone at the beginning?
The New Gun Week is published three times a month by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) on the 1st, 10th, and 20th. Hindsight is a commentary written by SAF President and Gun Week Executive Editor Joseph P. Tartaro. This commentary may be reprinted so long as credit is given to the author and the publication. For more information or to subscribe, write Gun Week, PO Box 488, Buffalo, NY 14209, or call 716-885-6408 Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST, or inquire on Compuserve to John Krull, Production manager-JohnSAF@Compuserve.com or gunweeksaf@broadviewnet.netAlso, check out the New Gun Week at http://www.GunWeek.com