U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

62–969CC WASHINGTON : 2000

THE WHITE HOUSE, THE NETWORKS AND TV

CENSORSHIP

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS,

TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 9, 2000

Serial No. 106–91

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce

(

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

TOM BLILEY, Virginia, Chairman

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

JOE BARTON, Texas

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

Vice Chairman

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

GREG GANSKE, Iowa

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia

TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma

RICK LAZIO, New York

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JAMES E. ROGAN, California

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

ED BRYANT, Tennessee

ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

BART GORDON, Tennessee

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

RON KLINK, Pennsylvania

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

TOM SAWYER, Ohio

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

GENE GREEN, Texas

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin

BILL LUTHER, Minnesota

LOIS CAPPS, California

JAMES E. DERDERIAN, Chief of Staff

JAMES D. BARNETTE, General Counsel

REID P.F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana, Chairman

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio,

Vice Chairman

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JAMES E. ROGAN, California

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland

TOM BLILEY, Virginia,

(Ex Officio)

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

BART GORDON, Tennessee

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

BILL LUTHER, Minnesota

RON KLINK, Pennsylvania

TOM SAWYER, Ohio

GENE GREEN, Texas

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,

(Ex Officio)

(II)

2

C O N T E N T S

Page

Testimony of:

Corn-Revere, Robert, Partner, Hogan & Hartson .......................................... 59

Franks, Martin D., Senior Vice President, CBS ............................................ 63

Loeb, Jef, Creative Director, Katsin/Loeb Advertising .................................. 55

Vereen, Donald R., Jr., Deputy Director, Office of National Drug Control

Policy .............................................................................................................. 18

Wallau, Alex, President, Network Administration and Operations, ABC

Television ....................................................................................................... 53

Material submitted for the record by:

Heekin-Canedy, Scott H., Senior Vice President, Circulation, The New

York Times, letter dated February 8, 2000, to Hon. W.J. Tauzin ............ 83

(III)

(1)

THE WHITE HOUSE, THE NETWORKS AND TV

CENSORSHIP

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2000

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:10 p.m., in room

2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin

(chairman) presiding.

Members present: Representatives Tauzin, Oxley, Cox, Wilson,

Bliley (ex officio), Markey, Eshoo, Wynn, Luther, Sawyer, Green,

and Dingell (ex officio).

Staff present: Mike O’Rielly, professional staff; Cliff Riccio, legislative clerk; Andy Levin, minority counsel.

Mr. TAUZIN. The committee will please come to order. Let me

first announce that we have finally a high-tech timing system here.

I am sure I would appreciate the committee that finally supplied

us with one. Instead of the little egg meter clock, we have some

real high-tech timing devices which we will use today. I welcome

high technology——

Chairman BLILEY. You are not planning on using those on the

members, are you?

Mr. TAUZIN. Not on the members, only on the chairman.

The committee will come to order. In 1997, Congress enacted legislation providing the Office of the National Drug Control Policy

with funding to pay for a National media campaign aimed at reducing and preventing youth drug use in the United States. In 1998,

Congress again appropriated funding for its media campaign with

one all-important understanding, that the ONDCP would use the

funding to purchase air time from broadcast networks and receive

in return from the networks a 100 percent pro bono match of air

time designated for additional anti-drug ads and public service announcements or PSAs.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, some have recently reported that

this basic statutory authorized arrangement has been substantially

altered by a surreptitious quid pro quo deal struck between the

ONDCP and the broadcast networks. It has been alleged by some

in the media that the ONDCP has relieved the networks, rather,

of some of their matching quotas in exchange for direct consultative

role in constructing the actual content of anti-drug messages in

programs prior to them being aired. According to one Salon.com article which ran on January 13, this has enabled the White House

2

to create a ‘‘new, more potent strain of anti-drug social engineering

that it wants.’’

Controversially, some broadcasters have apparently not objected

to the government’s added control over broadcasting content because it is in their economic interests not to do so. Essentially the

ONDCP forbearance for requiring 100 percent matching has apparently allowed some in the industry to sell otherwise encumbered

advertising time slots under the matching arrangements to the private sector for a profit; in short, in profit by the arrangement by

which the government certifies that politically correct speech is

contained in the programming. If, in fact, such a deal exists between the ONDCP and industry, I personally believe it is unconstitutional; that it is in violation of Federal communications law; and

last but not least, contrary with what Congress intended when it

appropriated funds for this project in the first place. I believe that

it puts the government on a horrible slippery slope of interference

with first amendment rights, the likes of which I have never witnessed in my tenure in the U.S. Congress. I am deeply troubled by

the stories that portrayed ONDCP officials as ‘‘Washington script

doctors who have cut dealing with networks in order to control the

actual content of their programming.’’ In my opinion, this, indeed,

amounts to a serious affront on the first amendment to the Constitution.

I also find it interesting that some in the industry who generally

defend the first amendment at every turn would choose to say

nothing about this when doing so would jeopardize the bottom line.

Let me also say that I am deeply pleased that at least one American television network said no. Not only said no, but said hell, no.

They would have no part of this arrangement and walked away

from it. They frankly have my admiration for doing so.

Finally, I wonder if the affected parties’ failure to announce their

financial arrangements with the ONDCP during their programming broadcast might have violated the reporting requirements of

section 317 of the Communications Act of 1934, the so-called Payola laws. With all of this having been said, I have called today’s

oversight hearing to get to the bottom of the allegations. I understand that the ONDCP contends that the various Salon.com articles are full of inaccuracies and misinformation. I received a call

from General McCaffrey alleging the very same thing. I am, of

course, interested in hearing about them, but at the end of the day,

I want to leave here with an understanding of the relationship between the ONDCP and industry. I want to determine just how

close the ONDCP has come to determining program content. And

I want our panelists to provide some clarification of the Section 317

issue. Furthermore, I think ONDCP should explain to the subcommittee why it is necessary to establish new guidelines to clarify

the pro bono match component of the media campaign and how

these new policies will prospectively preclude any suggestions that

the office is exercising control over the creative broadcast in broadcasting.

I would finally say that, as I told the General, he and the Office

of ONDCP have my continued support and admiration for the work

it does. Goals that it has embraced in reducing drug abuse in our

country are not only admirable, but extremely necessary. The pro

3

bono match program that we designed and funded in Congress was

designed to facilitate that effort. But if that program is now being

used to allow government for any good reason to determine the political correctness of speech on our networks, and then to award

those who politically correctly speak as opposed to those who don’t

with an indirect cash benefit, I think we have stepped incredibly

far and hard upon the first amendment. I have compared it to a

situation where the Governor or a president might read the newspapers each day, and if he liked the columns, they spoke well of

him, then he authorized some kind of cash benefit, some tax credit.

And if they spoke ill of him, he didn’t like the content of that newspaper, would have denied a cash benefit or some tax credit.

Can you imagine the revolution in this country if that were to

be allowed to stand? If the allegations we have read about are true,

and a government agency in our country is reviewing scripts and

rewarding the politically correct ones at the expense of those that

are not, then I think we have a similar situation when it comes to

broadcasting, and we ought to correct it immediately.

I look forward to learning the facts so we might understand

whether that has occurred and what is being done about it. I thank

you and look forward to hearing all of the testimony. I yield now

to the ranking minority member, my friend, from Massachusetts,

Mr. Markey.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. I want to

thank you for calling this hearing today on anti-drug public service

announcements, PSAs, and anti-drug messages in television network programs. I think this hearing will be very helpful in eliciting

exactly what policies and practices are in place, both at the Office

of National Drug Control Policy and the television networks while

handling PSAs and incorporating important anti-drug messages in

popular TV shows.

Obviously, I believe General McCaffrey is one of our great Americans. If we are going have a general leading this battle which is

just as important as any war we would every fight overseas, I want

General McCaffrey at the front of that line. So I am very proud to

know that somebody of his caliber is willing to take on this most

important of all battles being waged on the minds of the children

in our country. In 1997, Congress tasked the Office of National

Drug Control Policy to design a media campaign to help reduce and

prevent the use of drugs by America’s children. Under the guidelines issued by Congress and the drug office, it was authorized to

purchase media time for the campaign and for ‘‘entertainment industry collaborations advancing anti-drug messages in motion pictures, television programming, and popular music.’’

So we in Congress told this office that that is the goal, try to go

out there, try to accomplish this goal. We ordered them to do it,

an order from Congress. In addition, Congress placed a limitation

on the level of funding for this anti-drug effort, and required that

such funding be matched by an equal amount of nonFederal funds

or in kind contributions.

Recently this National youth anti-drug media campaign came

under scrutiny, and the media for its practice for including antidrug messages targeted to children within the popular programming aired on broadcast television. Concerns were raised and alleVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:14 Jul 19, 2000 Jkt 063830 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\62969 pfrm07 PsN: 62969
4

gations were made about government censorship of television programs. Concerns were also raised that taxpayers might not be getting the public service announcements that the program was designed to get because the TV networks were getting financial credit

for anti-drug messages that the networks were incorporated into

plots anyway. There is no question that as a society, we need to

explore every way to get the attention of children. And the younger

we reach them, the better with effective and compelling anti-drug

messages. There is no question that when I was boy, I was powerfully influenced by what the Lone Ranger gave me as his message,

good versus evil, much more important than the Kelloggs Corn

Flakes ad in terms how that might give me a value that was positive or negative. It was the Lone Ranger, Superman, those were

the people who were put in the television in the substance, in the

content of the television programming.

There is no question that as a society, we have reached a point

where the life expectancy of Americans, which was 48 years of age

in 1900, has now been extended 30 years. We went to the Garden

of Eden in 1900 and we have only extended it to 48. Today it is

78 or so on average for male and female. The interesting thing is

that we have, in fact, eradicated or dramatically reduced the impact which the diseases that our grandparents died from. We have

largely eliminated them. What we now die from are things that we

do to ourselves. It is drugs. It is alcohol. It is tobacco. It is food.

It is unsafe sexual practices. The images that are created for the

young people in our society are inside the body of these programs.

Let’s not kid ourselves. That is the new culture. As children

watch it they can either be given good messages or bad messages.

They can either embrace unhealthy behavioral practices or they

can ignore them. And so that is why I think it is a noble thing that

the networks have done in beginning to examine their own programming, beginning to question their own values how they would

want their own children to—whether or not they would want them

to be exposed to this kind of program.

I think that is a very healthy conversation, in fact, probably the

most healthy conversation in America. We have got to get a behavior. We know statistically that if a child doesn’t begin smoking by

the age of 19, there is a 95 percent chance he will never start

smoking. Same for drugs, alcohol, and everything. We have got to

get them early. These programs without question deal with it. That

is why we have children’s television rules. That is why we passed

the V chip and that is why we have rules governing what sort of

language and restrictive times for adult themes permissible over

the air waves because it understands how important the child audience is, how influenced they are by what they see on television. So

I would like to welcome again our panel. I think this hearing will

help to dispel much of the disinformation about the youth anti-drug

campaign and hopefully generate additional ideas about how we

might make this campaign more effective. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly thank our witnesses.

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman. The Chair recognizes the

chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Virginia,

Chairman Bliley.

5

Chairman BLILEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At today’s hearing,

we look at whether the anti-drug media campaign and the Office

of the National Drug Control Policy, better known as the Drug

Czar’s Office, crossed any lines in getting into its desired objective.

First, let me state that I want illegal drugs out of our society.

Illegal drug use is one of the biggest problems facing our country.

It effects everybody and destroys all of the lives in its path.

Undoubtedly, we all agree that America’s youth need to learn

about the risks and dangers of using drugs. The goal of teaching

our Nation’s youth that drug use is not acceptable, not cool, not

helpful to a productive future is a worthy one indeed. To teach this

lesson, Congress armed the drug czar with significant funding to

run a high stakes media campaign. But recent reports raised questions about just how the drug czar carried out in this campaign and

that is the reason for this hearing today. We know that Congress

wants a successful anti-drug campaign. We know that the Drug

Czar’s Office wants to decrease youth drug use. We know that with

some type of financial consideration given for including anti-drug

messages in network programming.

What I hope this will answer is how exactly did the Drug Czar’s

Office implement the anti-drug media campaign. I think we should

know exactly what transpired between the White House office and

the media outlets that participated with the anti-drug messages.

Many decisions were made about how the funding and credits for

the campaign were allocated. I would like to hear from our witnesses today about these decisions. I must admit that I am troubled by what I have seen and read on this matter.

Now, and again, we are forced to consider the age-old dilemma

of whether the ends justifies the means. I think the Drug Czar and

the networks’ action get mighty close to some questionable means.

I am concerned that the networks may have been happy to tilt

their artistic control when advertising time became a hot commodity. While I agree we are working toward similar ends, these

events represent a dangerous means to those ends. I will keep an

open line and hope this hearing address my concern. Thank you,

Mr. Chairman .

[The prepared statement of Hon. Tom Bliley follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TOM BLILEY, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

I thank Chairman Tauzin for yielding the time.

In today’s hearing we look at whether the anti-drug media campaign of the Office

of National Drug Control Policy—better known as the Drug Czar’s office—crossed

any lines in getting to its desired objective.

First, let me state that I want illegal drugs out of our society. Illegal drug use

is one of the biggest problems facing our country. It effects everyone. And it destroys

all of the lives in its path. Undoubtedly, we all agree that America’s youth needs

to learn about the risks and dangers of using drugs. The goal of teaching our nation’s youth that drug use is not acceptable, not cool and not helpful to a productive

future is a worthy one indeed.

To teach this lesson, Congress armed the Drug Czar with significant funding to

run a high stakes media campaign.

But recent reports raise questions about.just how the Drug Czar carried out this

campaign, that is the reason for today’s hearing.

We know that Congress wants a successful anti-drug campaign. We know that the

Drug Czar’s office wants to decrease youth drug use. We know there was some type

of financial consideration given for including anti-drug messages in network programming.

6

What I hope this hearing will answer is how exactly did the Drug Czar’s office

implement the anti-drug media campaign. I think we should know exactly what

transpired between the White House office and the media outlets that participated

with the anti-drug messages. Many decisions were made about how the funding and

credits for the campaign were allocated. I would like to hear from our witnesses

today about these decisions.

I must admit that I am troubled by what I have seen and read on this matter.

Now and again we are forced to consider the age old dilemma of whether the end

justifies the means.

I think the Drug Czar’s and the network’s actions get mighty close to some questionable ‘‘means.’’ I am concerned that the networks may have been happy to tilt

their artistic control when advertising time became a hot commodity. While I agree

we are working toward similar ends, these events represent a dangerous means to

those ends.

I will keep an open mind and hope this hearing addresses my concern.

I yield back my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the chairman. The chairman is now pleased

to welcome and recognize the ranking minority member of the full

committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell.

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing. During the past month we have heard pious denunciations of a program to encourage anti-drug messages in television programs. Some of these denunciations have come from editorial writers whose newspapers have only been too happy to accept advertising dollars from the same anti-drug program they now

decry. Others have come from Members of Congress who have had

ample opportunity in the past years to raise questions about this

program, yet have failed to do so.

I am compelled to ask what causes their belated outrage. I am

reminded of the saying that my dear little mother used to say

about how when people overslept, they tend to wake up in a very

bad state of mind and in a bad humor. I think it is worth reviewing

the history of this program. The proposal for this anti-drug campaign was unveiled with great fanfare amidst huge tub thumping

and tremendous thunderous expressions of outrage by our good

friend, then-Speaker Mr. Newt Gingrich in Atlanta in July 1998.

On August 20, the Los Angeles Times further detailed the substance of this program. The paper noted that the agreement had

been reached for a $50 million package with Disney and ABC provided credits for such things as broadcast time, Internet sites, and

further noted, I quote, that ‘‘the Fox Family Network may count as

donations episodes in its entertainment programs that carry out an

anti-drug message.’’

The legislation authorizing this anti-drug campaign was passed

by the House just before the election on September 16, 1998. It had

nine votes against it. I was one of those who voted against it. If

any of the others of you here present voted against this proposal,

I would like to see a show of hands saying that you had joined me

in that opposition. In there I had the very interesting statement

which I made. I said, ‘‘Since this legislation has been drafted behind closed doors by a task force composed almost entirely of Republican members with little opportunity for input from the other

side of the aisle. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that the ideas

of all but very few Democratic members were not a part of the discussion when this bill was created. It also means we are considering a bill that was introduced only last Thursday and then reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:14 Jul 19, 2000 Jkt 063830 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\62969 pfrm07 PsN: 62969
7

ferred to six committees, none of which has taken any action on the

bill.’’ The bill was on the floor the Monday following.

The USA Today noted that under the campaign, media outlets

can receive credit for anti-drug messages in the following way. This

is in November 1998. So this is not news to this committee or indeed to anybody else. I now quote: ‘‘For networks, donating commercial time counts. Talk show time can count. So do White Houseapproved scripts that promote the anti-drug theme. So does time

on a prime time show when a kid is shown turning down a marijuana cigarette.’’

None of this is news, although I am delighted that we are finally

awakened and inquiring into these matters. So when news of this

program and its practices became a controversy earlier this year,

I admit that I was somewhat baffled. I may have some personal

doubts about the wisdom of this approach, but it cannot be said

that the Congress could not have acted to prevent it back in 1998.

In fact, had Congress fulfilled its responsibilities in 1998 or followed the orderly and ordinary and intelligent procedures of this

body, perhaps we might not be holding this hearing today and we

might not be hearing newly founded expressions of outrage from

my Republican colleagues.

The legislation authorizing the anti-drug campaign was rushed

to the floor with not a single hearing and without a single committee markup, despite the fact that the provisions fell within the

jurisdiction of no less than six House committees. The legislation

was a product of a task force led by government reform subcommittee chairman, the distinguished gentlemen from Illinois, our

current Speaker, Mr. Hastert, who is now as I note, the Speaker

of this body.

Now, this gives us a distinguished parentage, but I would note

that one of the aides to the Speaker has had the temerity to say

that, ‘‘It is very upsetting that the White House has control over

the Nation’s television programs.’’ Terrible outrage over something

which he did and they did. Funds have been appropriated for this

anti-drug campaign in each year since its authorization. Indeed

some were appropriated prior to the authorization of the program.

Now, it seems that if the White House really did control these television programs, it would first move to cancel Jay Leno’s monologues. Having said that, General McCaffrey has repeatedly testified before the Appropriations Committee on this matter. I think

every member of this House has been out at one time or another

making stump speeches telling how he had pushed through this

legislation, which was going to make a massive contribution to publicizing the evils of use of drugs.

Now, I am not sure what awakened my colleagues from their

deep and tranquil slumber, but I welcome today a belated opportunity to discuss the merits of the approach under discussion as we

go into this matter. As we do, let us keep a few facts in mind. First,

this program was enacted in broad daylight. Second of all, it is not

mandatory. It creates financial incentives. I will address those in

just a minute. But are we so terribly shocked to learn that broadcasters will respond to financial inducements? I opposed the legislation creating the program in part because it was procedurally

flawed, because the House had not properly considered it, because

8

it was fraught with extremist provisions separate from the antidrug campaign, all of which were of doubtful merit. Nevertheless,

the campaign had strong bipartisan support and passed with only

nine negative votes. And again, I would ask anyone who was opposed to it, please hold up your hand so that we can see that you

were there to warn us of the evils that ended here.

Nonetheless, to the extent these practices are problematic, the

responsibility is shared between the political parties and the executive and the legislative branches.

Now, I want to read to you some of the language that is in this

bill, just so you will know what you are talking about today, Mr.

Chairman. Let’s go to section 1802, use of funds, A, authorized

uses. Then let’s go down to H which says ‘‘entertainment industry

collaborations to fashion anti-drug messages in motion pictures,

television programming, popular music, interactive (Internet and

new) media projects and activities, public information, news media

outreach, corporate sponsors and corporate sponsorship, and participation.’’

They go on. This is authorized expenditures of public moneys.

Having said that, there is also a fine requirement later that says,

C, a little bit further down in 1802, matching requirement.

‘‘amounts made available under section 1804 of this title should be

matched by an amount equal to nonFederal funds for national

media campaign or be matched with in-kind contributions to carry

through the campaign of the same value.’’

Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I think you are quite frankly

pumping a dry hole here today and I would say I wait with some

interest to find out ‘‘where is the beef?’’ Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. John D. Dingell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing.

In the last month we’ve heard pious denunciations of a program to encourage

anti-drug messages in television programs. Some of these denunciations have come

from editorial writers whose newspapers have been only too happy to accept advertising dollars from the very same anti-drug program they now decry. Others have

come from Members of Congress who have had ample opportunity in past years to

raise questions about this program, yet failed to do so. I’m compelled to ask what

causes their belated outrage.

It’s worth reviewing the history of this program.

The proposal for this anti-drug campaign was unveiled with great fanfare, and the

participation of then-Speaker Newt Gingrich, in Atlanta in July of 1998.

On August 20, 1998, the Los Angeles Times further detailed the substance of this

campaign. The paper noted that agreement had been reached on a $50 million package with Disney-ABC providing credits for such things as broadcast time and Internet sites, and further noted, and I quote, that ‘‘the Fox Family Network may count

as donations episodes of its entertainment programs that carry an anti-drug theme.’’

The legislation authorizing this anti-drug campaign was passed by the House just

before the election, on September 16, 1998.

In November of 1998, USA Today noted that under the campaign, media outlets

could receive credit for anti-drug messages in the following ways, and I quote:

‘‘For the networks, donated commercial time counts. Talk show time can

count. So do White-House approved scripts that promote the anti-drug theme.

So does time on a prime-time show when a kid is shown turning down a marijuana cigarette.’’

So when news of this program and its practices became a controversy earlier this

year, I must admit I was somewhat baffled. I may have some personal doubts about

the wisdom of this approach, but it cannot be said that the Congress could not have

acted to prevent it back in 1998.

9

In fact, had Congress fulfilled its responsibilities in 1998, much of this controversy

could have been avoided. The legislation authorizing the anti-drug campaign was

rushed to the floor without a single hearing or committee markup, despite the fact

that its provisions fell within the jurisdiction of six House Committees. The legislation was the product of a task force led by a Government Reform Subcommittee

Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hastert, who has now gone on to become the Speaker. Despite his parentage of this program, one of his aides has had

the temerity to say, and I quote, it’s ‘‘very upsetting that the White House has control over the content of the nation’s television programs.’’

It seems to me that if the White House really did control television programs, it

would first move to cancel Jay Leno’s monologues.

Funds have been appropriated for this anti-drug campaign in each year since its

authorization. General McCaffrey has repeatedly testified before the appropriations

committees, yet we heard not a peep questioning these practices until January of

this year.

I’m not sure what awakened certain members of Congress from their peaceful

slumber, but I welcome the belated opportunity to discuss the merits of the approach under discussion here today.

As we do so, let us keep certain facts in mind.

One, this program was enacted in broad daylight.

Two, it is not mandatory. Yes, it creates certain financial incentives. But are we

so terribly shocked, shocked to learn that broadcasters will respond to financial inducements?

I opposed the legislation creating the program under discussion today, in large

part because it was procedurally flawed and because it included extraneous provisions, separate from the anti-drug campaign, that were of dubious merit. Nonetheless, this campaign had strong bipartisan support in the Congress. To the extent

that these practices are problematic, the responsibility is shared between the political parties and the executive and legislative branches.

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman. I would be interested in

knowing why the department had to clarify its programs once the

news reports were issued. The gentleman from Ohio, the vice chairman of the committee, is recognized for an opening statement.

Mr. OXLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is indeed a serious

subject. First of all I have an article that was in the Washington

Post on Friday, January 21, an op-ed piece written by Charles

Krauthammer I would like to make part of the record.

Mr. TAUZIN. Without objection, so ordered.

[The article follows:]

[Friday, January 21, 2000—Washington Post]

A NETWORK SELLOUT

by Charles Krauthammer

No one invokes the sanctity of the First Amendment more often and more passionately than the media. When music companies are criticized for purveying the

most repulsive misogynistic rap lyrics, they hoist the First Amendment flag. When

newspaper reporters who’ve given confidentiality pledges refuse to testify about

their sources, the flag is run up again.

As it should be. For all its abuses, the First Amendment is perhaps the greatest

of all bulwarks against the power of government. It turns out, however, that the

TV networks are not quite the First Amendment purists they pretend to be. Dangle

some cash in front of them and they will let the White House drug czar vet their

scripts.

Salon magazine reported Jan. 13 that in return for being released from the obligation to show free anti-drug ads (and thus enabled to sell that ad time), the TV networks have allowed the White House to review primetime programs to make sure

they send the right anti-drug message.

These networks are parts of some of the same media giants that make passionate

protestations of their sovereign right to purvey syncopated CD incitement to rape

and murder. They are quite willing, however, to accept government meddling in

their prime-time shows if that makes them money.

How much money? There’s the howler. The six networks combined sold their First

Amendment soul for a grand total of $25 million, about what Arnold

10

Schwarzenegger gets for one movie. This for companies with combined revenues of

about $5 billion.

It reminds me of that immortal line in ‘‘A Man for All Seasons’’ in which Sir

Thomas More, condemned to death on the false testimony of his protege Richard

Rich, sees him newly wearing the insignia of attorney general of Wales. ‘‘For

Wales?’’ says More. ‘‘Why, Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the

whole world. But for Wales!’’

In reality, this ad-money-for-script-vetting swap is a novel form of product placement. Product placement is the practice of taking a bundle of cash from Coke in

return for having the hero swig some prominently onscreen.

Disturbing as it is, gratuitously inserting a soda can or cereal box or muscle car

into a scene for money is a trivial form of artistic corruption. However, inserting

government-sponsored messages is not.

Unlike Coke and Kellogg, government has the power to tax, audit, subpoena, imprison. We allow companies and individuals and groups to put all kinds of pressure

on media—through advertising, boycotts, lobbying. But we balk when government,

with such unique and abusable power, steps in. In a system where liberty is preserved by the separation and diffusion of power, we rightly refuse to grant government even more power through control of the content of free media.

One reason is to prevent slightly Orwellian press releases of the kind issued by

the White House drug office on Jan. 14. It is headlined: ‘‘New Study Finds Little

Depiction of Illicit Drugs on Network Prime Time Television: White House Drug

Czar Pleased with Accurate Portrayals.’’ He should be. He paid for them.

No big deal, you say. This whole affair involves nothing more than promoting

anti-drug messages on prime-time shows. What’s so wrong with that?

The big deal is not these particular ads but the principle: government’s hand in

mass media script writing. If that is no big deal, what is to prevent government

from doing it for other causes of its choosing?

President Clinton and his spokesmen were asked whether the vetting of scripts

might not be extended to equally worthy messages about ‘‘gun control’’ and ‘‘youth

violence’’ (and why not to recycling, ethnic tolerance, charitable giving and the correct use of the fork?). The response was not encouraging.

Press Secretary Joe Lockhart was defiant. We were ‘‘looking for other ways to get

the [anti-drug] message out that allows networks in a robot advertising environment

to sell to other people where they can make more money,’’ he said.

Got a problem with that? Well yes. Some find the practice corrupting. And when

they asked Lockhart if it does not raise questions about deceptive government influence, he responded in perfect Clintonian fashion: ‘‘As far as sort of theological questions for the entertainment industry,’’ said Lockhart ‘‘I suggest you put the questions to the entertainment industry.’’

But of course. This is surely an airy abstraction for the likes of Thomas Aquinas,

on retainer at DreamWorks.

Mr. OXLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. By the way, I served for

a number of years on the Committee on Narcotics Use and Control

and have been involved in the anti-drug issues for a number of

years. I have great respect for ONDCP and its leadership over the

years including, of course, General McCaffrey. But I have to say

that I have some real concerns when it appears that there is some

involvement by government in drafting, or at least approving certain scripts, given the power of government and the power that the

government has versus the private sector in this particular area as

it relates to the first amendment. Let me quote Mr. Krauthammer.

He says, ‘‘Unlike Coca Cola and Kellogg, government has the power

to tax, audit, subpoena, and imprison. We allow companies and individuals and groups to put all kinds of pressure on the media

through advertising, boycotts, and lobbying. We balk when government, with such unique and abusable power, steps in. In a system

where liberty is preserved by the separation and diffusion of power,

we rightly refuse to grant government even more power through

control of the content of free media, indeed the very heart and soul

of the first amendment.’’

11

Krauthammer goes on, ‘‘One reason is to prevent slightly erroneous press releases of the kind issued by the White House drug

office on January 14. It is headlined, ‘‘New study finds little depiction of illicit drugs on network prime time television. White House

Drug Czar pleased with accurate portrayals.’’

Krauthammer says, ‘‘He should be, he paid for them.’’

Well, indeed the real question lies as to where do you draw the

line? If the anti-drug message is indeed a good one, and I think all

of us would agree in general that that is the case, do we then follow with issues like gun control, youth violence, bad breath, or the

heart break of psoriasis? Where does it end in terms of the involvement of the government in these issues, and where does it say that

the first amendment ends at a particular level of government involvement?

Now, I would hope that the networks would have some kind of

coverage of this hearing, Mr. Chairman, although I am not going

to count on it. I do think that this is a story worthy of following,

if nothing else but for those who profess to be saviors and protectors of the first amendment. And when it appears that the first

amendment has been breached with prior approval by government

agencies, whether it be in religious broadcasting or in commercial

broadcasting, I think this committee has the legitimate right to inquire as to the propriety and the constitutionality of such acts. For

that, I think all of us are pleased that we have an opportunity to

air these issues and I yield back.

Mr. TAUZIN. The Chair thanks the gentleman.

Mr. Luther.

Mr. LUTHER. I will yield.

Mr. TAUZIN. Ms. Eshoo is recognized for an opening statement.

Ms. ESHOO. Well, let me get myself organized here, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I am delighted to be here. I want to thank you

for holding this important hearing. I think it is the first one of the

year 2000 for this subcommittee and we are—embedded in this

hearing is our Constitution, the First Fmendment, and so it continues to live on. We continue to question what is appropriate,

what the use of it is, the application or the misapplication of it. I

am delighted to be here. I welcome everyone that is on the panel,

but I have a 25-year friend, Jeff Loeb who is here on the panel. He

has distinguished himself in what he has done, and I really value

our friendship over all of these years and also to watch him grow

in everything that he has done.

I am concerned about the reports that the administration influenced content on prime time television shows. I believe that this,

indeed, raises serious first amendment questions that I hope will

be answered quite directly at today’s hearing. Although the intent

of the ONDCP’s program is a good one, and the messages that were

encouraged throughout the anti-drug story lines of these shows are

themes that I think all of us would approve, I do think the administration went too far. ONDCP’s program created a situation where

there is a clear, competitive, and financial advantage for shows

that offered anti-drug themes. The administration, in my view, has

no business doing that. I am pleased that General McCaffrey has

clarified the policies that they are going to follow, particularly that

12

ONDCP will not review program episodes until after the programs

have aired.

I think the updated policy leaves little doubt that the administration will not have any role in creating content. I agree with this

policy, and I think there has to be a clear line drawn so that no

one would make the mistake of thinking that the government is in

any way controlling the content of our entertainment. The ONDCP

program can and should be an effective way to broadcast the message of the terrible harms that abusing drugs can cause. The program should not be implemented, however, at the expense of a content-rich environment.

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today, Mr.

Chairman, and I also think that the ranking member’s testimony

was really quite instructive. I don’t know how many members actually read everything that was buried in what we voted on. He did.

He objected obviously to the process. So while it is healthy to review some of the curiosities of who was involved and who didn’t

raise their voices about certain things and who does now, I still

think it is important to have this hearing and to hear from our witnesses and to review something that has everything to do with how

this Nation really has grown and functioned so well, and that is

our Constitution and the first amendment. I yield back.

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you. The gentlelady from New Mexico, Mrs.

Wilson, is recognized for an opening statement.

Mrs. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also appreciate you

holding this hearing today. I have known General McCaffrey for

quite a long time and served with him as a young lieutenant and

captain when I was in the Air Force. I know of his commitment to

this issue and his integrity, and I have a tremendous respect for

him and for what he has done with national drug control policy. I

am looking forward to some clarification today on facts and also on

policy with respect to what the intent of the Office of the National

Drug Control Policy was and what is and is not correct in the public accounts of what we have heard and read online and in the

newspapers.

It seems to me the issue here and the problem is not the drug

campaign or public awareness campaign to influence young people.

All of us agree that that is a message that we want to get to young

people. The issue is the means. In my mind there is nothing wrong

with the government promoting a message. We do that all of the

time, whether it is anti-smoking or anti-drugs. The issue is whether the people have a right to know when they are being propagandized by their government. That to me is the important part.

With respect to the first amendment and government control or influence of speech, we are talking generally about things like smoking or anti-drug messages for kids. But what about messages

where good and bad are less clear? What if the message was about

abstinence or the importance of reference for children and prayer

in schools, or even more controversial issues about the environment?

From the point of view of the broadcast media, are there only

some messages that you are willing to carry or rewrite your scripts

for or is it just a matter of price? I think that that is an important

question to know. I would kind of like to know the answer to that

13

and I will be asking those questions today. Finally, Mr. Chairman,

with respect to the question of what the law really says, and I have

not been at this anywhere near as long as the distinguished minority leader of this committee. But I read the plain language of this

authorization act. I don’t understand it the same way he does as

authorizing this kind of tradeoff without any public knowledge of

what is going on with public dollars. I read that clause very

straightforwardly.

I have no problem with authorizing entertainment industry collaboration to fashion anti-drug messages in motion pictures, television programming, popular music, and so forth. But that seems

to me to be authorizing something quite different than government

control or approval of scripts. That is what we are talking about

here. As I said, I have no problem with the intent of sending a

message to kids that drugs can ruin your life, and I think that that

message has been clear from every public leader and every broadcast outlet and every medium that we can with kids.

The question is one of first amendment control and what the industry is willing to sell. And finally, whether the people have a

right to know when the message is coming from their government

as opposed to the creative license of a private individual. Thank

you.

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from Ohio,

Mr. Sawyer, is recognized.

Mr. SAWYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a longer statement today that I don’t intend to read. I would like to make a couple of observations, however, the first of which is I think it is obvious that the government should not have prior approval of specific

programming. But it is also true that if the government is going

to be in the business of promoting a particular kind of message

that we ought to make sure that that message is, in fact, that what

is being paid for. The government is an advertiser in that regard.

A message that says ‘‘just say no’’ is one thing. One that says ‘‘just

say maybe’’ says something else. One that says ‘‘you can smoke but

don’t inhale’’ is something entirely different. It becomes a question

of nuance. In that sense it may be—however valuable a message—

open to question whether the government ought to be in that business at all in a way that is not a clearly separated from the content

of programming, however effective that might be as a medium for

sharing a message. I think back to the time that the gentleman

from Massachusetts referred to the Lone Ranger and Superman,

and then you think back to Robin Hood in a valuable but somewhat

different message.

Mr. MARKEY. Democratic.

Mr. SAWYER. I wasn’t going to get into that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAUZIN. What was it, robbing?

Mr. SAWYER. I also recall in those same 1950’s where advertising

was a seamless part of the entertainment part of the program. And

the host of the show, whether it was Milton Berle talking about the

man with the Texaco star or people lighting up cigarettes, and as

a part of the plot, referring to the brands and the pleasure they derive from it, or pouring a beer and making that an obvious part of

the message.

14

That clearly goes on today in motion pictures. And the question

becomes one of whether or not the government, per se, ought to be

in that business of seamless message-sending at all. If they are

going to be in that, they need to be able to be assured of the quality

of the message. But it remains open whether that ought to be the

case. With that, I think I will yield back the balance of my time

except that before a panel like this, I would really be interested to

note who is the first person on this side who asks ‘‘is that your

final answer’’ and ‘‘do you want to call a friend.’’ Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Tom Sawyer follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS C. SAWYER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this oversight hearing this afternoon regarding the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s Youth Anti-Drug media campaign.

I appreciate our witnesses coming to testify before us on this matter.

I want to commend the ONDCP for conducting such an aggressive youth antidrug, antiviolence media campaign. When television was first introduced after

World War II, I doubt many people expected it to have the effect on society as it

has had. Today, television is a major influence in all of our lives. In fact, last November the Kaiser Family Foundation released its Kids and Media at the New Millennium study where it was reported that youth in America between ages 2 and 18

years old spend on average close to 3 hours per day watching television. I can only

suspect that the amount of time spent watching television will increase dramatically

with the manufacturing of better televisions in the future. Therefore, it seems only

appropriate to me that the ONDCP provide some incentive that encourages television broadcasters to deliver anti-drug messages.

Less than a month ago, Salon.com reported that the Office of National Drug Control Policy received program scripts from several networks prior to their shows being

aired to determine how much advertising credit the company would receive in exchange for promoting an anti-drug message. There has also been an assertion that

the ONDCP asked to have the content of the scripts changed. It is also my understanding that there is little, if any, truth to those allegations, and I hope that

through this process we learn more about the policies and practices of the ONDCP.

I believe we all can agree that no federal agency or office should be in the business of dictating the content of network shows. That is clearly a violation of the

First Amendment, and I would hope that the networks would not allow that to happen. Although we may not approve of some of the programming that airs on television, the networks should remain independent of government.

Having said that, I believe that as an advertiser, and in this instance I believe

the federal government is an advertiser because public service announcement credits are being given to the networks to free up advertising time for private sponsors,

you want to know what it is you are paying for before you agree to buy the advertising slot. In this regard, I believe it’s entirely reasonable for the ONDCP and the

networks to be able to share the scripts, review them to evaluate the messages, and

assign a credit prior to the program being aired. But there’s a stipulation, and I

made mention to it earlier, as long as the ONDCP does not modify the content of

the program. In some instances, this may help reduce the costs of companies who

need to buy advertising time because the network knows how much advertising time

is available and they can sell those slots earlier rather than later. But I understand

the Drug Czar recently issued a new policy clarifying that the credits will not be

determined until after programs air.

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for calling this hearing. I am a little surprised

by all of the negative reporting of what has happened. Nonetheless, I hope this becomes an opportunity for the ONDCP, and the networks to set the record straight

and educate us and the public about this media campaign.

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from California, Mr. Cox is recognized.

Mr. COX. Thank you. I apologize for joining you late, and therefore, I missed all of the opening statements of my colleagues. But

I am not going to miss the testimony. I look forward both to the

15

testimony and my opportunity to put questions to the panel. Thank

you.

Mr. TAUZIN. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the chance

to hold this hearing because I watched this issue unfold over the

last month. And much like Diet Coke and Budweiser ads, the Office of General Counsel paid money to the networks to display their

product which was an anti-drug message. Think about the number

of companies that pay for their product or message to be advertised

within the content of a movie or TV series. In movies, companies

allow their products to be shown for advertising value. Web advertisers pay the most popular web sites to carry a link to their products. Paying a media outlet to advertise a product or message in

their content is not new.

We have heard that we want government to be run like a business and now we have it. I guess that is why we are having this

hearing today to see if we really want the government running like

a business. There has been government influence over military

movies for years. If you want to make a pro Army, Marines, Navy,

or Air Force movie, you can use their facilities. If the movie was

anti-war or anti-military, I bet you were denied those facilities. In

1997, Congress appropriated funds for the development of a media

plan to reduce and prevent drug use by America’s youth. Drugs are

a problem that we have faced as a Nation for some time. Frankly,

I applaud the creativeness of this administration and their vision

of a targeted youth anti-drug campaign. I don’t believe there was

any secret agenda or malicious intent. I assume they were just trying to use every vehicle in their command, in today’s free market

system, to get their message out.

Both the networks and ONDCP were trying to prevent and fight

drug abuse among our children, and they are using the most visible

communications medium, television. They are doing what other

companies have been doing for years in movies and on television.

As in Casablanca, Mr. Chairman, I am shocked. There is a commercial message that is built into the content. I just can’t believe

that. At least now it is not encouraging me to buy Diet Coke or

Budweiser, but it is encouraging people to refrain from what is an

unlawful and illegal activity and the message is ‘‘do not use illegal

drugs.’’ I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Wynn, is recognized.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin by expressing my appreciation to you for calling this very important hearing.

I wanted to make a brief comment from a somewhat different perspective. The congressional black caucus wrote to General McCaffrey in March of last year expressing our concern about the disparities in the allocation of funds, media funds, between majority- and

minority-owned media outlets. We noted at that time that approximately $185 million was being spent by media outlets, and yet only

about $3.2 million was being spent by African-American owned

media outlets.

The response from the Office of the National Drug Control Policy,

to say the least, was unsatisfactory. Again, there is a substantial

allocation of funds in this year’s budget for the office. We think it

16

is important that there be a representative and fair allocation, particularly since many of these funds are on a no-bid basis between

majority- and minority-owned media outlets.

So I would very much like to get in the course of this hearing

a response to those issues that were raised. And in the event in

this hearing doesn’t allow opportunity for full response, I would be

happy and would request the chairman’s permission to submit

questions to the panelists so they could provide extensive response

to the CBC. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman. It is a policy of the committee to keep the record open for at least 30 days. We will keep

it open 30 days. If the gentleman or any other member wishes to

submit written questions to the panel at the conclusion of this

hearing, at any point we will certainly accommodate them in that

request.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Luther is recognized.

Mr. LUTHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be heard on this particular issue. A number of my colleagues have made reference to this, but I think it would be helpful

if the witnesses could draw any similarities or contrasts between

what we are talking about here and what is commonly known as

product placement advertising. That has already been referred to

by Mr. Sawyer, Mr. Green. This is just my sixth year here in Congress. Perhaps there have been hearings or outrage expressed in

the past over product placement advertising. But that is where an

industry like the tobacco industry actually pays the entertainment

industry to include tobacco products or even name brand tobacco

products, thereby altering the content of the program.

So for my way of thinking, something like that probably is a

more serious concern than some of the issues that we are talking

about here. But I think it would be very instructive to us if the witnesses could talk about that. In other words, how does this differ

from that? What is the greater public harm coming about? And so

that is the simple point that I wanted to make. If we are talking

about really dealing with a very serious matter here, I think our

focus ought to be on the serious part of the problem and not make

too big of an issue about people who are legitimately trying to get

a positive message out to the public. So that is simply the point.

I think if the witnesses could address that it would be very helpful.

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman.

[Additional statement submitted for the record follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA CUBIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing on the recent interactions between the major television networks and the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

It should concern all of us when we hear of the possibility that our government

may be eroding the sanctity of our First Amendment rights.

We’ve seen it recently in the Federal Communications Commission’s order regarding what constitutes religious programming over the public airwaves. Thankfully

we’ve seen the subsequent reversal of the order. A few FCC commissioners, though,

still maintain they have the authority to limit religious programming. It’s an issue

we must continue to monitor closely.

There is no doubt that the Office of National Drug Control Policy has its work

cut out for it when it comes to preventing drug use by America’s youth.

17

Regardless of the challenge the Administration has before it, it cannot and should

not trample our First Amendment Rights for the sake of the National Youth AntiDrug Media Campaign.

Obviously it is of utmost importance that the Campaign be successful in helping

to prevent America’s youth from using illegal drugs, alcohol and tobacco.

In 1997, when Congress appropriated funding for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, it expressed its support for an aggressive and strategic media plan to

combat drug use.

This Administration, however, has gone way beyond the intent that Congress laid

out in 1997. It was widely reported in a recent article in Salon.com that the ONDCP

felt it necessary to review network television scripts for ‘‘anti-drug’’ content.

Fortunately, Director McCaffrey has seen the error of the ONDCP ways and recently issued a new policy that does not allow his office to review program scripts

until the programs have been aired.

I believe the policy should be codified into law to ensure other agencies or offices

within the Administration don’t take these types of liberties in the future.

Mr. Chairman, there is certainly a lot of controversy surrounding today’s hearing.

It’s unfortunate that a campaign meant to do good has become so tainted.

It is my sincere hope that we can address the issue before us today for the sake

of our nation’s youth who may be struggling with pressure from their peers to try

illegal drugs.

Again, thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this important hearing. I look forward

to hearing from the witnesses and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Any further questions? The Chair is pleased to welcome the panel. Let me introduce them to you, first of all. Let me

extend to this committee and the entire hearing the apologies of

General McCaffrey. I think he is in Mexico at this time in antidrug conferences. I had a conversation with him just this weekend

and received his personal apologies for not being able to attend. I

assured him that we would be very happy to receive your testimony, Dr. Vereen, and also that we wished him well. He is in Mexico and then Colombia after that. So we have with us the Deputy

Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Dr. Donald

R. Vereen, Jr., who will be testifying for the gentleman in the program.

We have with us Mr. Alex Wallau, the president of Network Administrations Operations of ABC TV Network. We have Jeff Loeb,

the creative director of Katsin/Loeb Advertising in San Francisco;

Mr. Robert Corn-Revere, a partner in Hogan & Hartson here in

Washington, DC; and Mr. Martin Franks, the senior vice president

of CBS here in Washington, DC.

Gentlemen, again you heard the questions raised by the members of our committee in their opening statements. I know that you

have all prepared written statements. If you can, please don’t read

those to us. We have them. If you can, summarize and hit the highlights and if you can in your presentations address some of the

issues that the members have raised, so that we can get to Q and

A as quickly as possible.

Dr. Vereen, this is not the first time that the Congress has

passed a law that was implemented by an agency that we had

questions about, but it has happened here and we do need an explanation and some answers. We would appreciate your testimony

and welcome you to the committee. You are not recognized for that

purpose.

18

STATEMENTS OF DONALD R. VEREEN, JR., DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY; ALEX

WALLAU, PRESIDENT, NETWORK ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS, ABC TELEVISION; JEF LOEB, CREATIVE DIRECTOR, KATSIN/LOEB ADVERTISING; ROBERT CORN-REVERE,

PARTNER, HOGAN & HARTSON; AND MARTIN D. FRANKS,

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, CBS

Mr. VEREEN. Thank you. On behalf of ONDCP and Director

McCaffrey, thank you for this opportunity to testify and to clarify

what the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign is all about.

Chairman Tauzin, Representative Markey and other members of

the subcommittee, we want to tell you, up front, that we appreciate

the congressional support for the media campaign. Thank you for

those comments.

Mr. Chairman, I do have opening remarks. They are quite extensive and detailed and deal with the questions that have been posed

and I respectfully request that they be included in the record.

Mr. TAUZIN. Without objection all written statements are made

part of our record. So ordered.

Mr. VEREEN. The other thing that we are prepared to do is to

present directly to you a sample of the ads as well as examples of

what shows up in television programming, so that you can see for

yourself directly the evidence that we are talking about. That is

going to take the allotted time that I have. I have approximately

5 to 7 minutes.

Mr. TAUZIN. Without objection, the Chair would request that the

Panel authorize Dr. Vereen to not count against his allotted testimony time, the time that would be used up in video presentation.

Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. VEREEN. It is 4 or 5 minutes. I just wanted to clarify. I also

want to make some acknowledgments because the media campaign

is not just ONDCP. I must recognize Jim Burke and Mr. Dick

Barnett from the Partnership for a Drug Free America. Dr. Alan

Leshner, who is the director of the National Institute of Drug

Abuse. Remember that, because this is not propoganda we are

dealing with but scientific facts; Major General Art Dean and the

5,000 community anti-drug coalitions of America; Peggy Conlon of

the Ad Council, an invaluable partner; Wally Snyder of the American Advertising Federation, and I would like to recognize law enforcement, public health, and community organizations. All have

been a partner in this. I also have to point out our two media partners in advertising and communications, Shona Seifert, the executive group director and our project director for this campaign are

here from Ogilvy & Mather. They have just been voted the best ad

agency on the East Coast by Ad Week.

Beverly Schwartz, who is the project director for the media campaign and the senior vice president of Fleishman-Hillard. They

have been named the agency of the decade by Inside P.R.’s report

card. We are working with two of the best in the country. Brief introduction. It is a little unusual to have a physician working at the

Office of National Drug Control Policy, but we have one. That person is me. I am a physician trained in psychiatry. I have been

working at NIH for most of my career in the Federal Government.

I know something about public health health promotion.

19

What I bring to the agency is the sense of science, that is, what

we have based all of this on. It is important, Mr. Chairman, to understand that this campaign began a while back, 4 years ago. At

the time this was the situation: There was 30 percent decrease in

the number of public service announcements noted on public television in the early part of the 1990’s. There was a general sense,

we don’t have the hard data, but a general sense that the drug use,

in addition to violence and sex, were glamorized in television and

films, and that at the very least, drug use and violence were shown

without any negative consequences.

We refer to that as accurate depiction or inaccurate depiction of

the problem. Third and perhaps more importantly, studies show

that past month drug use in young people, ages 12 to 17, was increasing in the early 1990’s. In other words, there was a crisis and

we were able to articulate three very clear areas where we could

respond to the crisis. Congress recognized the situation and passed

legislation authorizing the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. It was a huge bipartisan commitment that established an

historic public health communications program. This was not a

willy nilly fly by-night operation. The campaign was approved by

Congress in the Omnibus Bill. You heard about all of that. I don’t

need to go into the details.

Over the next 8 months, we, the Federal Government, collected

the best and the brightest minds in behavioral science, substance

abuse prevention and research. We gathered best practices from

the public and private sectors, lessons learned from past campaigns. We obtained advice from over 200 experts and expert panels. We developed a comprehensive communications strategy. This

communications strategy is a public document. It lists in here exactly what it was that we were about.

So what is the campaign? It is a program that is designed to

carry out the first goal of the National Drug Control Strategy, to

educate and enable America’s children to reject illegal drugs, including alcohol and tobacco. It is science-based. This is not

propoganda that we are talking about. Each and every message

that shows up in a commercial has a scientific fact at its core, or

a group of scientific pieces of information that ground the commercial. The purpose of this campaign is to increase awareness, change

attitudes, and change behavior. We charged ourselves with doing

that. Our target audience, young people, 11 to 13. The media campaign, as you can see from this, involves all media. It is not just

television. It is the Internet; it is the radio; it is the print media;

it is film. It is everywhere that children are. Based on past ad campaigns, they didn’t go that far in reaching out to kids making sure

that they were there where kids were. Everything we do, every dollar we spend for advertising or other communications efforts is

linked to one of these message areas. Again, not propoganda.

Science-based information in these categories. I can go over those

in detail at some other point if you wish.

So the strategy was developed based on what experts told us.

They said communicate with kids wherever they were, to penetrate

at the community level, and to develop partners. We do that

through our Ogilvy & Mather and Fleishman-Hillard partners. The

campaign has six major components. The green box in the middle

20

are the main components. The most visible component are the ads.

Most of you, if not all of you, have seen the ads on television. Most,

the vast majority of the money appropriated for this program,

something like 85 percent of the money, goes to buying ad time, not

to make the ads; the ads are made pro bono. Sometimes we pay

for a bit of the production cost. But we are buying ad time. We are

buying air time. That air time, if a network chooses to accept the

Federal dollars, has to be matched with what we call a public service obligation. Congress’s wisdom was that if you are going to get

taxpayer dollars, you had to give us something back in return for

that money. What you get is what we refer to as the match, this

public service obligation. The pro bono match or the obligation has

a set of criteria. We have to have a set of benchmarks that are—

next chart, please—that are open and not secret.

How is it that you would get something that in a sense counts

for the pro bono match, that counts toward serving back this public

service obligation? Let me underscore here: There is no money involved in the match. There is no money involved in the public service obligation part of this program. A pro bono match that fits

these criteria developed by experts for us, and we use experts to

determine what satisfies this, gets approved after you have proven,

or shown to us, that you have met your obligation.

Now, at this point, let me show you the fruits of what has come

about in our interaction with our partners, the networks.

Mr. MARKEY. Can you take down the sign here for a second?

Mr. VEREEN. What you are going to see first is a tape that features two public service ads.

[Videotape shown.]

Mr. VEREEN. Next are examples of television programming that

qualified for the match.

[Videotape shown.]

Mr. VEREEN. I think that is the end of the tape. Let me clarify

a couple of things that you may not have noticed—before I say

that, ABC is also going to present some other information for you

to judge for yourself. But if you notice, the two ads did not have

ONDCP at the bottom. It was not labelled as a part of the media

campaign. That is because those ads were already developed as a

regularly occurring public service announcement, something that is

completely legitimate, on fatherhood and volunteerism. Those are

the issues that relate directly to the kinds of things that protect

kids from using drugs. Those two ads qualify for our match because

they attach themselves to those very issues that we want to be able

to support. I can go into further detail about how this campaign

has been supportive and helpful of other public service groups.

That is very important.

In that same vein, the networks, in particular ABC, has been

very good at putting responsible images on television. We just released the first study by Mediascope several weeks ago indicating

that the perception, the second point that I made about why we initially started this campaign, the perception that television was not

doing a very good job in depicting accurately the drug problem. You

can see that the creative work that comes out of their shops is phenomenal. Through this work, we have developed a number of very

important partners. We consider the networks a very important

21

partner. That is evidence of their work. One of the things that I

wanted to offer for the official record in addition, are partnership

letters clearly outlining how we work with them.

Mr. TAUZIN. Without objection, they are made a part of the

record. Dr. Vereen, your time is just about up.

Mr. VEREEN. There have been some recent press stories and I

want to take this time to set the record straight about misinformation. We didn’t get many calls to clarify what was written in many

of these stories because you would get what you are going to get

now with a lot more time and a lot—as much detail as you would

need to satisfy yourselves. Let me say that this has been the most

public and open campaign of its kind. America should be proud of

it. It is a model in terms of public health promotion. It is a matter

of public law. We took our guidance from Congress on how to proceed with this. We report regularly.

These are examples of the regular reports to Congress and to the

American public about what this campaign is and how it works. We

have had a GAO audit. We have had three congressional hearings

related to this and numerous other pieces of paper and information. We have never intruded in the creative process. I can let my

colleagues here attest to that. The process by which we provide information, scientifically based information in terms of technical assistance to the networks and to the creative community, is a separate process from the media campaign and the match. With that

I think I will end my remarks and cover other points through questions. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Donald R. Vereen follows:]

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman. There will be time for questions. The Chair is now pleased to welcome Mr. Alex Wallau, President of Network Administration Operations, ABC TV Network.

Mr. Wallau.

STATEMENT OF ALEX WALLAU

Mr. WALLAU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In deference to your request, Mr. Chairman, I will dispense with the part of my written

testimony that addressed the issue of ABC’s history of public service. Let me just suffice to say that we have had a history in public

service generally for many years, specifically in drugs for 13 years

with the Partnership for a Drug Free America, and we have donated through ABC Incorporated, the owned television stations and

radio stations, radio networks, publishing, hundreds—literally in

13 years, hundreds of million dollars of valued public service.

Mr. TAUZIN. Let me interrupt. The gentleman would also have

the same courtesy we extended to Dr. Vereen. If you have a television video presentation it will not be subtracted from your time.

Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. WALLAU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Specifically with the

ONDCP relationship, in 1998 the ONDCP, through its program

purchased advertising time in return for an equal match and value

from its media partner. The ABC network stepped up with a major

commitment to this program. In the first buying cycle from covering a 15-month period from July 1998 to September 1999, the

ONDCP bought $39 million worth of ads on ABC. In return, we

agreed to match that figure with a combination of PSAs approved

through the ONDCP and programming with anti-drug story lines.

We gave over $34 million in PSA time, more than double our previous PSA level, and 88 percent of a commitment that we owed for

the $39 million purchase. The remainder of our commitment of

media value was met, and we believe actually far exceeded by programming with anti-drug themes, many in our signature prime

time shows. We have a tape to give the subcommittee an idea of

how they dealt with the issues. If we could roll the tape, please.

[Videotape shown.]

Mr. WALLAU. Just the points that were raised earlier, Mr. Chairman, about how these programs came to be. None of the programs

that are on that tape or any that we submitted for the match for

the first year of the ONDCP were done in response to requests of

the networks. These were stories that the creators, like David Kelly

and Steven Bochco wanted to tell on their shows, they were relevant to society, they wanted to make their viewers aware by telling strong powerful stories that you saw there. There was nothing

from the network to them saying we need you to do these stories

in order to get money. That wasn’t the process.

We did submit these shows after the fact with not scripts, but

synopses of what the story line was, how much time of the show

the drug-related story contained and submitted them after the fact

with those kind of synopses and cassettes to the ONDCP. I should

mention that we never submitted any of the outstanding coverage

of the subject of drug abuse that was done by ABC News because

of the specific nature of that division.

54

In May of last year, our sales people met with the ONDCP and

its ad agencies to negotiate renewal of the deal, the second year of

our relationship. The senior sales executive at that meeting called

me to say that the guidelines had changed. The ONDCP had stated

at the meeting that in order for a program to qualify for the match,

a script had to be submitted in advance. We told our executive we

would not do that. The sales division then negotiated a new deal

based solely on a PSA match.

There was no programming match component to our deal this

year. A month later, the ONDCP brought $18,500,000 in time for

this 1999-2000 season. We are a third of the way into that season.

About a third of that money, over $6 million of ONDCP ads, have

aired on the network and we are pacing well ahead of our commitment goal to match just with PSAs and almost $10 million in PSA

match value has already been broadcast on the ABC television network.

One other important fact, Mr. Chairman, that has been raised

here and in some of the articles written about this and I think misunderstood, the relationship with the ONDCP did not, in any way,

create a windfall for us. The fact is it cost our network tens of million dollars in revenue. If we had not entered into the relationship

with ONDCP, we would have made at least $50 million more to our

bottom line. We could have sold this extra PSA time we added to

make the PSA match, especially as was referenced of the members

in the booming advertisement marketplace we have today. Instead,

that time went to messages dealing with solutions to problems facing millions of children and their parents every day. We know our

medium is a powerful one and the impact of these messages hopefully changed lives and perhaps helped save some lives. I welcome

any questions that you, Mr. Chairman, and the subcommittee have.

[The prepared statement of Alex Wallau follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALEX WALLAU, PRESIDENT, ADMINISTRATION AND

OPERATIONS, ABC TELEVISION NETWORK

Mr. Chairman: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before you

today. I’d like to give a brief overview of ABC’s public service efforts and then address our relationship with the ONDCP.

ABC’s overall commitment to public service has been serious and significant for

a long time, and our involvement in the war against drugs specifically goes back

more than a decade, when we began airing the messages of the Partnership For A

Drug Free America. Since April of 1987, the Television Network, our Owned Television Stations, our Radio Networks, our Owned Radio Stations, and our Publishing

division have devoted media time and space worth hundreds of millions of dollars

to this effort.

The relationship with the PDFA created an unprecedented model for cooperation

between a media company and a public service organization. In 1995, the Executive

Vice President of the PDFA said, ‘‘ABC is by far the biggest supporter of the Partnership. Without them, the Partnership would never have survived.’’

We built on our commitment in March of 1997 by launching our own initiative.

We called it ‘‘March Against Drugs,’’ an entire month dedicated primarily to encouraging parents to talk to their children about drugs. We ran anti-drug PSA’s every

hour for the entire month, representing about $8 million in media value, and virtually every day we aired programming that addressed the issue, with tie-ins to our

website.

A year later, the ONDCP began its program of purchasing advertising time in return for an equal match in value from its media partner.

The ABC Network stepped up with a major commitment to this program. In the

first buying cycle, covering the 15-month period from July 1998 through September

1999, the ONDCP bought $39,400,000 of ads on ABC. In return, we gave

55

$34,600,000 in PSA time for ONDCP-approved messages, more than doubling our

PSA time from its previous level.

The remainder of media value was exceeded by programming with anti-drug messages, many in our signature prime time shows.

To qualify these shows for the match, we submitted plot summaries and cassettes

after the airing of the show. We never submitted any of the outstanding coverage

of the subject done by ABC News because of the special nature of that division.

In May of last year, our Sales people met with the ONDCP and their ad agency

for the negotiation of the deal renewal. The next day, the senior Sales executive at

that meeting called me to say that the guidelines had changed. The ONDCP had

stated at the meeting that, in order for programming to qualify for the match, a

script had to be submitted in advance. We told him we would not do that.

The Sales division then negotiated a new deal based solely on a PSA match, without any programming. A month later, the ONDCP brought $18,500,00 in time for

the upcoming season. So far this season, the ONDCP has bought $6,086,850 in ad

time, and we have aired $9,841,560 in PSA match value.

One important fact has been sometimes misunderstood in the recent events that

have resulted in today’s hearing. The relationship with the ONDCP did not result

in a windfall for us. It cost our Network tens of millions of dollars in revenue. If

we had not entered into the relationship with the ONDCP, we would have made

at least $50 million more by selling the extra PSA time we added to make the PSA

match, especially in today’s booming advertising marketplace. Instead, the time

went to messages dealing with solutions to problems facing millions of children and

their parents every day. Our medium is a powerful one, and the impact of these

messages hopefully changed lives and perhaps helped save some.

I would be happy to answer any question that you, Mr. Chairman, or the Subcommittee may have.

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you, Mr. Wallau.

Mr. Jeff Loeb, creative director, Katsin/Loeb Advertising, San

Francisco.

Mr. Loeb.

STATEMENT OF JEF LOEB

Mr. LOEB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I start, I would be

remiss not to express my thanks to Congresswoman Eshoo. I think

it is we who are proud of her and how much she was done for all

of us.

Mr. TAUZIN. And so are we.

Mr. LOEB. I woke up this morning with kind of a couple of things

running through my mind. The first one was, I am glad the members have been talking about their favorite TV shows. One of the

lines that came into my mind was Blazing Saddles, where he said

Mongo is just a pawn in the game of life. I am here because

through an odd set of coincidences, I wound up on the Nightly

News with Jim Lehrer in the unfortunate position of having to

criticize what ONDCP policies were to Dr. Vereen. I felt kind of

bad about it, because ultimately, what they are doing is all of the

right things.

But unfortunately, the way in which this has transpired is somewhat controversial. And I think what my strongest counsel to you

is, since I have zero axe to grind, I am not an agency representing

ONDCP or any other government agency, is that you do not throw

the baby out here with the bathwater. The baby in this case is that

ultimately the business of advertising, more and more, is about

building brands. By that, we mean what the emotional and intellectual attributes that we hope to thread to our products. You are familiar with that concept. The reality is ONDCP’s job is to build an

anti-brand. We don’t want to build bridges to drugs, we want to divide them up, we want to distance ourselves from that. In that conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:14 Jul 19, 2000 Jkt 063830 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\62969 pfrm07 PsN: 62969
56

text you would say to yourself that logic suggests that if product

placement works for a brand, wouldn’t anti-product placement

work for anti-brand particularly geared to young people whom we

all know when they see a commercial that specifically targets them

tend to reject it. That is the hardest in dealing with generations

X and Y.

The question becomes in that situation, do the rules of the engagement change when it is government doing the advertising. In

thinking of this way, I am sort of mindful of one of my favorite

books before I met Anna actually was Drew Pearson’s—a lot of his

stories about Washington. I have always loved this place. He said

in government oftentimes the right things get done for the wrong

reason. I have to say this is a case where the wrong thing got done

for the right reason.

I think what is important to do is to draw lessons from that and

move forward. Frankly, if I were with my distinguished panelists

from CBS and ABC, I would say, boy, this is an interesting possibility. I know NBC isn’t here, but if Coke could convince NBC to

get Jennifer Aniston on Friends to say, no, thanks, I will have a

Coke instead of a Pepsi because it is healthier for me, I think they

have a uncovered huge new stream of revenue.

Certainly they would be held as marketing geniuses. Unfortunately, this is not the case here. ONDCP is not a company. It is

not a private advertiser. It isn’t anything like one of those kinds

of things, the kind of people that I typically represent. What they

are is an element of government with a legitimate public policy interest. If the threshold question is should government become involved with the business of marketing, the next follow-up question

is how do we make government the most effective in the way it

markets? I don’t know if you are familiar with the statistics on how

many ads we as citizens or consumers are confronted with every

day. I have seen numbers right now approaching 20,000. How do

you make an impact in the face of that? How do you get awareness? How do you get people, particularly young people, to pay attention?

Product placement works in that situation and I would suggest

to you that anti-product placement could be equally efficacious. The

problem here is that product placement unlike the anti-product

placement is fully disclosed to the audience. I see a movie, it is

James Bond, there is a BMW, an ungodly amount of money spent

on it. I know they are paying for that. I accept that. It doesn’t

interfere with my enjoyment of the show or the willing suspension

of disbelief. I see a message about my behavior and what I should

or should not think and then it get as little dicier, because I don’t

know for a fact that the government played any role in that.

More importantly, I think one of the members alluded to this,

there is the question of precedent and where do you stop. At what

point does it become impermissible for product anti-placement or

the promotion of behaviors in our public policy context to occur. I

am mindful of the fact that in this situation—the Marines are huge

advertisers—I wonder if we want the Marines reviewing shows and

commenting on content of programming. On the other hand, and I

say this from a standpoint of a relatively modest-sized agency in

San Francisco, the amount of money that you are talking about in

57

this case, the technical term of the networks would be peanuts. We

are not talking about enough money to really influence things.

Let me wrap this up. If the real problem here is disclosure and

audience understanding, it is a very simple problem to conclude.

You merely, in the titles and credits of programs, indicate that

there was some consultation in government or an ONDCP problem.

The second thing is if Congress is going to authorize these kinds

of programs in the future, Congress needs to be informed about

what they are. Network negotiations are hugely complicated and

there really is totally negotiation. There is no cost for a commercial

when these guys are doing the work because it is really about how

much we promise to get and how much they deliver when we negotiate. This is a clever negotiation. Last, I would urge you not to

handicap your advertising agencies, including the ones here who

are excellent, in being creative. The stakes here in drug control are

too great. I think the trick here is merely to put the thing on the

right course.

I apologize for taking all of my time. I really meant to do half

of it.

[The prepared statement of Jef Loeb follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEF LOEB, CHAIRMAN/CREATIVE DIRECTOR, KATSIN/LOEB

ADVERTISING, INC.

It is a great honor to have been asked to appear before you and to have the opportunity to discuss a subject of deep interest to anyone involved in affecting public

attitudes and behaviors—particularly given the governmental context.

For the record, I would like to state that I do not represent any advertising industry group and that my viewpoints are not endorsed either by my agency or any of

our clients. They are, however, supported by more than 20 years in advertising, creating and writing advertising campaigns on behalf of commercial, industrial, manufacturing, health care, e-commerce, media, governmental and public service organizations. My own work, and the work of my agency, has been recognized at the international, national and regional level in a variety of advertising competitions. Additionally, by way of further credentials, I have taught marketing, advertising and

copywriting at several schools and have been published in various advertising industry trade magazines.

The events that provoked today’s hearing reflect the inevitable collision between

three dynamic forces—the national interest in defeating a pernicious threat to public health and welfare; the evolution of 21st century marketing practice in a world

where getting attention, much less making an impact, is increasingly daunting; and,

most important, the role of government when it assumes the mantle of an advertiser.

In considering the results of this intersection, I would like to underscore my belief

that what happened in no way, shape or form reflects any evil or malignant intent

by the White House, ONDCP or any of its advertising advisors. Rather, it’s the

product of people of good will going the proverbial bridge too far in pursuit of a very

legitimate objective.

In that spirit, let’s begin by talking about the advertising underpinnings of this

program and why, from that limited perspective, ONDCP’s actions actually made a

great deal of sense.

In our pop-culture world, most of us are familiar with the concept of ‘‘product

placement.’’ Whether it’s a can of soda placed in a movie scene or a manufacturer

paying millions of dollars to make their car the star of the show, product placement

is an inevitable feature of today’s entertainment industry. Advertisers use this tool

for reasons ranging from building product awareness to creating favorable associations for their brands. After all, if James Bond drives the car, it must be cool.

This is particularly true for youth markets who, repeated studies have shown,

often reject messages specifically targeted at them in the form of 30-second TV spots

or magazine ads. The twin keys in reaching these groups seem to be creating the

kind of aggressive ubiquity that allows Generations X and Y to ‘‘discover’’ and adopt

the brand or the product on their own.

58

Of course, ONDCP’s mission isn’t to create a brand at all, but rather its diametrical opposite—call it an ‘‘anti-brand.’’ So, logic suggests, if we know that product

placement works in brand-building, why not try the inverse—having negative references about our ‘‘anti-brand’’ organically inserted into entertainment?

When Salon broke the story about this program, I was caught by the thought that

product placement is now commonplace—but this is the first example of anti-product placement in recent history.

In fact, it is an exceedingly clever notion. Let me assure you: if Coca Cola were

somehow able to magically persuade a network like NBC to have Jennifer Anniston

on Friends reject a Pepsi in favor of a Coke—it would be hailed as an astonishing

marketing coup.

But ONDCP isn’t Coke; it isn’t a company with products to sell; it isn’t even an

advertiser in the ordinary sense. ONDCP is an arm of the Federal Government—

and that is where the wheels begin to fall off on what, otherwise, would be regarded

as an ingenious advertising innovation.

The question is: do the advertising rules change when government is the sponsor?

I submit to you that they do and for two common sense reasons.

The first is rooted in the nature of non-traditional marketing tools like product

placement. Creatively these are effective because they lend verity to the production,

are sometimes unexpected and, from the audience standpoint fundamentally non-directional. Unlike conventional advertising, a product placement doesn’t say ‘‘think

this, feel this, buy this.’’ It only introduces us to the product in a context where it

gains cachet. Audiences buy into the placement because they are more than well

aware of the intent and willing to accept its intrusion.

In this instance, however, ‘‘anti-product placement’’ has one other, more opportune

but less fortunate attribute: the fact of persuasion is not only non-disclosed, but invisible to any member of the audience who hasn’t happened to read the Congressional Record.

This lack of disclosure leads to a second, and far more transcendent, concern: if

it’s okay for the government to engage in undisclosed marketing tactics when it

comes to drugs, how about tobacco? If it’s okay for tobacco, how about teen pregnancy? If it’s okay for teen pregnancy, how about any of a hundred other issues that

could legitimately lay claim to the national interest? And if it’s okay for the Federal

Government, how about the states? After all, in most states lotteries are established

to support public education.

Most important, and of greatest concern, if this precedent is set now, what about

the future? Will an administration with vastly different predilections—and the ability to rally sufficient Congressional support—be able to utilize these tools on subjects like abortion or religion or lifestyles?

Boiled down, it all comes down to this: there is a bright but exceedingly fine line

between promotion and propaganda when government attempts to influence public

behaviors or attitudes. In light of the stakes involved in many of these issues, a

democratic society can and should embrace the former. And utterly reject the latter.

At the outset of this presentation, I characterized this situation as a collision between national interests that often justify government stepping out from behind the

bully pulpit to use tools like advertising to promote the welfare of its citizens; the

demands of marketing efficacy in the 21st century; and, the role of government as

an advertiser.

None of these forces ever needs to come into conflict again, if the Congress sets

and lives by three policies.

The first must be strict avoidance of any action that would promote the reality

or the appearance of exerting pressure on the creative content of programming.

Even the perception of such activities is crippling—a vital point when you realize

that advertising is as much about perception as it is reality. And that government’s

mission in these exercises is to create perceptions that motivate and lead to positive

actions.

Second, whenever the government is involved, a rule of strict disclosure must be

enforced. It’s already normal in TV spots and print ads. It should become standard

in titles and credits that follow movies and television shows, where appropriate.

Third, I would suggest that those who have an oversight role in these matters

also need to be informed about the involved dynamics. According to the news stories

I have read, this all occurred as part of the typical bargaining that attends most

network buys. If you are going to pass judgement on the efficacy of those purchases,

you may be well advised to have your own experts on call to evaluate the proposal.

These are not earthshaking recommendations. Nor do they imply that the government needs to shut off the creative wellsprings of its advertising agencies and advisors. In fact, ONDCP’s revised policy itself may well represent a pragmatic solution

to this complex problem.

59

But in the fluid, ever changing and always negotiable world of marketing, extreme care must be taken to ensure that government never steps over the bright

line from promotion to propaganda. Which, in the end, is what this particular issue

is all about.

Mr. Chairman and Members, thank you for your time. If there are any questions

I can answer, I would be delighted to give them my best response.

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Robert Corn-Revere, a partner of

Hogan & Hartson here in Washington, DC.

Mr. Corn-Revere.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT CORN-REVERE

Mr. CORN-REVERE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of

the committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify on this important subject. I have been asked to address the potential first

amendment issues that arise from the question of the possible

practice of providing financial credit for anti-drug messages in

prime time entertainment programming. Before addressing that

issue, I would like to touch on a couple of the issues or practices

that I think clearly do not raise first amendment concerns. First,

obviously, the practice of having a public information campaign and

purchasing public service announcements by itself raises absolutely

no constitutional concerns. Freedom of the press doesn’t mean that

the government is disabled from entering the marketplace of ideas,

it can add its voice to others. Personally, I was very taken with the

Emperor Penguin ad. It made me feel a little bit bad since I left

my kids on vacation to come to this hearing.

Second, the practice of the entertainment industry outreach by

ONDCP that has been presented in testimony elsewhere by members of the office also doesn’t raise any constitutional concerns. In

the material that I have read, ONDCP personnel meet regularly

with producers and entertainment executives in Hollywood to provide factual and medical information on drug use. And that again

raises no concern. It is laudable. While these practices are not controversial, the allegation that a number of prime time programs

have had specifically governmentally approved messages inserted

in them for exchange for public service announcement time does

raise some controversial issues.

I realize there is a factual dispute over how this transpired and

the extent it took place. I am not here to weigh in on that. I really

don’t know. I think that hopefully with hearings like this, those

factual issues will be sorted out. While I can’t evaluate the respective versions of events, I really would like to offer some perspective

on some of the constitutional issues that are raised. Obviously, as

we have heard about today, perspectives on this can vary widely.

One columnist in the Washington Post asked, is it really so alarming that Uncle Sam is undermining the creative integrity of

Sabrina, the Teenage Witch?

Other columnists have raised a totally different perspective as

the column from Charles Krauthammer that has already been introduced into the record here. My own view is that for a Nation

dedicated to freedom of expression, the United States should resist

the use of propoganda as acceptable policy regardless of how meritorious a particular message might be. I know that Dr. Vereen has

described this as not being propaganda, that it is medical or sciVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:14 Jul 19, 2000 Jkt 063830 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\62969 pfrm07 PsN: 62969
60

entific fact. I don’t dispute his characterization of what the messages are. I don’t think that keeps it from being propoganda when

the government is inserting it into programs or using incentives to

make sure those messages are inserted into programs, the viewers

of which I am sure are not aware that they are receiving a government-sponsored message.

Like the wall of separation between church and State envisioned

in the Constitution, I believe that the first amendment calls for a

separation of press and state. Just as Robert Jackson wrote over

half a century ago, the first amendment was intended to foreclose

public authority for assuming a guardianship of the public mind

and for protecting the public against false doctrine.

It is true that this program did not involve compulsion in the

sense that it wasn’t based on a government directive or a government rule. However, the adoption of such a rule is not necessarily

prerequisite to raising serious first amendment concerns. For example, 25 years ago the broadcast networks were persuaded to develop a family viewing policy in which programming was inappropriate for viewing by a general family audience would not be presented before 9 p.m. These networks’ decisions were voluntary in

the sense that no official edict issued from the FCC required them

to adopt this policy.

Nevertheless, the Federal district court that reviewed the agreement that limited the family viewing policy described it as a per

se violation of the first amendment. The same kinds of first amendment concerns can arise from funding decisions, whether or not it

is subsidized postal rates or tax exemption based on a person’s willingness to say a certain thing or got a royalty of. Certainly we have

seen this kind of concern raised with respect to grants for the National Endowment of the Arts, one that the Supreme Court approved limited the kinds of conditions it was imposing in that case,

it cautioned that if specific kinds of messages were required in

order to receive those Federal grants, that would raise grave first

amendment problems.

I think the same kinds of concerns are raised by the kinds of

policies that have been described. Once again, I don’t presume to

know what all of the facts are. I see that my time has expired. I

would be happy to answer any questions later on.

[The prepared statement of Robert Corn-Revere follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT CORN-REVERE

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to

testify on this important subject.

A little less than a month ago, the story broke in Salon magazine that the White

House Office of National Drug Control Policy (‘‘ONDCP’’) had used its authority and

spending power under the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, 23 U.S.C.

§ 1802, et seq. to insert anti-drug messages into prime time entertainment programming presented by the national broadcast networks. According to the story, the 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 credits

were given under the auspices of a five-year, $1 billion media campaign that

ONDCP described in a 1998 press release as ‘‘the largest and most complex socialmarketing campaign ever undertaken.’’

It was reported that under this program government officials and their contractors began approving, and in some cases altering, the scripts of shows before they

aired in order to conform to the government’s preferred message. ONDCP reportedly

used a numerical formula to assign a financial value to the anti-drug messages that

61

appeared 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. Accordingly, the Salon 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.

Reactions to the revelations have varied widely. One response is that the story

is no big deal. Writing in the Washington Post, Marjorie Williams asked if it is

‘‘really so alarming that Uncle Sam is undermining the creative integrity of ‘Sabrina

the Teenage Witch?’ ’’ Marjorie Williams, ‘‘. . . But Really, What Was Sold?’’ WASH- INGTON POST, January 21, 2000 at A29. She concluded that ‘‘the propaganda in

question here was distinctly benign’’ because drug use ‘‘is one of the few uncontested

zones in our perennial culture wars.’’ Writing the same day, Charles Krauthammer

pointed out that the big deal is that the government ‘‘has the power to tax, audit,

subpoena [and] imprison’’ and that in a system ‘‘where liberty is preserved by the

separation and diffusion of power, we rightly refuse to grant government even more

power through control of the content of free media.’’ Charles Krauthammer, ‘‘A Network Sellout. . .’’ WASHINGTON POST, January 21, 2000 at A29. He also asked whether such tactics might not be applied to ‘‘equally worthy messages’’ about gun control,

youth violence, recycling, ethnic tolerance or charitable giving. These two examples

are fairly representative of the range of opinion on this issue.

My own reaction is that, as a nation dedicated to freedom of expression, the

United States should resist embracing the use of propaganda as an acceptable policy, regardless of the merits of any particular message. By propaganda, I am not

referring to the campaign to purchase advertising time in order to deliver an antidrug message. Such efforts to persuade the audience are readily recognizable as

such to the viewers, who can form their own impressions of the message. Instead,

I am concerned about the use of federal funds and advertising credits to induce the

networks to transmit an officially approved message. Like the ‘‘wall of separation’’

between church and state envisioned in the Constitution, the first amendment requires a separation of press and state. ‘‘At the heart of the first amendment lies

the principle that each person should decide for him or herself the ideas and beliefs

deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence. Our political system and cultural life rest upon this ideal.’’ Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622,

641 (1994). ‘‘Government action that stifles speech on account of its message, or that

requires the utterance of a particular message favored by the Government, contravenes this essential right.’’ Id.

As Justice Robert Jackson wrote over half a century ago, the First Amendment

was intended to ‘‘foreclose public authority from assuming a guardianship of the

public mind,’’ and from ‘‘protect[ing] the public against false doctrine.’’ Thomas v.

Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 545 (1945) (Jackson, J., concurring). The ONDCP initiative

to influence prime time programming appears not only to have crossed the line

marking the First Amendment’s underlying philosophy, but to have scrambled it.

Of course, the act of purchasing public service advertisements, by itself, raises no

constitutional concerns. There is no question but that ONDCP’s actions in conducting a media campaign was well within its legitimate authority. Freedom of

speech ‘‘does not mean that government must be ideologically ‘neutral,’ ’’ or ‘‘silence

government’s affirmation of national values,’’ or prevent government from ‘‘add[ing]

its own voice to the many that it must tolerate.’’ Laurence Tribe, AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 588, 590 (1978). But that is not all that appears to have taken

place here. As Justice Scalia has noted, ‘‘[i]t may well be that threat and thus suppression would be the consequence of a scheme for systematic review of books and

films by an official evaluator, in order that the government may label their content

approved or condemned.’’ Block v. Meese, 793 F.2d at 1314.

Without a doubt it would violate the First Amendment if the government adopted

a rule requiring broadcasters to include anti-drug messages in prime-time programming. Turner Broadcasting System, 512 U.S. at 650 (‘‘the FCC’s oversight responsibilities do not grant it the power to ordain any particular type of programming

that must be offered’’). The question here is whether less coercive means of exerting

influence raise similar concerns. I believe that government actions that fall short

of a law or regulation can violate the First Amendment.

Twenty-five years ago, the broadcast networks were persuaded to adopt the ‘‘family viewing policy,’’ in which programming ‘‘inappropriate for viewing by a general

family audience’’ would not be presented by 9 p.m. The network programming decisions were ‘‘voluntary,’’ in the sense that no official order emanated from the FCC

62

requiring the policy. But the District Court that reviewed a challenge found the policy to be a per se violation of the First Amendment because it resulted from a concerted plan by the Commission to influence licensees’ programming decisions. Writer’s Guild of America, West v. FCC, 423 F. Supp. 1064 (C.D. Cal. 1976). The decision

was reversed on appeal on jurisdictional grounds, because the reviewing court held

that the complaint should have been presented to the FCC in the first instance and

not to a federal district court. Writer’s Guild of America, West v. FCC, 609 F.2d 355

(9th Circuit 1979). But at the same time the Court of Appeals noted that such informal actions to control programming present ‘‘serious issues involving the Constitution, the Communications Act and the APA.’’ Id. at 365.

Similar concerns may be raised by the use of federal funds to influence or dictate

programming content. It has long been held, for example, that when government

subsidizes private speech it may not favor some viewpoints or ideas at the expense

of others. Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc., 327 U.S. 146, 149 (1946) (the Postmaster General may not deny subsidies to certain periodicals on the ground that they are ‘‘morally improper and not for the public welfare and the public good’’). Nor may the government condition tax exemptions on a person’s agreement to utter approved

speech, Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 519 (1958), or otherwise engage in discriminatory taxation of the press. Leathers v. Medlock, 499 U.S. 439, 447 (1991).

These same considerations apply to discretionary distributions of federal funds for

expressive purposes. In National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569

(1998), the Supreme Court upheld a condition on NEA grants to artists that required the endowment to consider ‘‘general standards of decency and respect for the

diverse beliefs and values of the American public.’’ In doing so, however, the Court

found that the condition was not a ‘‘categorical requirement’’ that would ‘‘preclude

or punish the expression of particular views.’’ And the majority added that if the

NEA ‘‘were to leverage its power to award subsidies on the basis of subjective criteria into a penalty on disfavored viewpoints, then we would confront a different

case.’’ Id. at 587. Here, the use of federal money by ONDCP to provide a substantial

bonus to broadcasters who agree to transmit a government-vetted message may well

be that different case.

Apart from any possible constitutional issues, various federal policies are designed

to limit the use of propaganda, whether or not the message is ‘‘benign.’’ For example, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, 22 U.S.C. §§ 611-621, requires any foreign

agent who engages in political activities to register with the Justice Department and

to notify DOJ within 48 hours after it transmits into the United States ‘‘any political propaganda for or in the interests of [its] foreign principal.’’ 22 U.S.C. § 614(a).

The required notification must contain a statement ‘‘setting forth full information

as to the places, times and extent of such transmittal.’’ 22 U.S.C. § 614(a).

The law is not directed only at messages that have some subversive or nefarious

purpose. It defines ‘‘political propaganda to include any form of communication ‘‘reasonably adapted to... prevail upon, indoctrinate, convert, induce, or in any other

way influence a recipient or any section of the public... with reference to the political or public interests, policies, or relations’’ of the foreign entity. 22 U.S.C. § 611(j).

As a result, the law has required ‘‘political propaganda’’ notices for Canadian films

about acid rain and about the dangers of nuclear war, Israeli films about the plight

of Soviet Jewry and German films about the Berlin Wall. Block v. Meese, 793 F.2d

1303, 1306, 1312 (D.C. Cir. 1986). In short, if the messages approved by ONDCP

had been produced by a foreign entity, federal law would have required full disclosure on the theory that the American public has a right to know the source of the

persuasion.

Similarly, Section 508 of the Communications Act requires producers of programs

who receive money or other valuable consideration for the inclusion of matter in a

program to report its receipt to the licensee over whose facilities the program is

broadcast. 47 U.S.C. § 508. And Section 317 of the Communications Act requires

broadcast licensees to announce when matter contained in a program is paid for,

and by whom. 47 U.S.C. § 317. These laws were adopted in the wake of the ‘‘payola’’

scandals of 1950s because Congress believed that the public should know if record

companies were paying broadcasters to play certain songs. It is difficult for me to

believe that it is a matter of lesser concern if the government pays broadcasters to

insert approved messages into their programs.

Some have suggested that ONDCP’s efforts are not a matter of concern because

the message is commendable. But as the Washington Post editorialized shortly after

the story surfaced:

[W]e happen to agree with the spin, and the idea of sitcoms and television

dramas carrying anti-drug themes seems healthy. But where does it end? Could

the government pay the networks to slip idle comments into ‘‘ER’’ about the virtues of a particular health care policy?

63

‘‘Drugs, TV and Propaganda,’’ WASHINGTON POST, January 15, 2000 at A24. I agree

with this concern, but it is not merely a question of a slippery slope. What about

other matters within ONDCP’s mission? When California was considering Proposition 215 regarding the medicinal use of marijuana in 1996, General McCaffrey

spoke out strongly against the measure, stating the ‘‘[a]s medicine, this proposition

is unworthy of the Middle Ages. As politics, it is dishonest.’’ ONDCP Press Release,

White House Drug Policy Director McCaffrey Issues Statement Against Legalization

of Marijuana, Sept. 12, 1996. As it turned out, California voters disagreed. But

would it have been legitimate for ONDCP to have attempted to change their minds

through placement of officially sanctioned messages in prime time?

At this point, it is premature to reach firm conclusions about the legality of

ONDCP’s actions. Hopefully, hearings such as this one will bring out all the facts

so that the American public can fully assess the legitimacy of the government’s program of inserting its messages into popular entertainment.

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you.

Finally, Mr. Martin Franks, senior vice president, CBS, Washington, DC. Mr. Franks.

STATEMENT OF MARTIN D. FRANKS

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. I confess to being surprised at the news reports that

circulated last month that made it seem as if the networks and

ONDCP have been engaged in secretive and unseemly practices. In

fact, from the program’s inception, CBS has done nothing more

than cooperate with ONDCP in a way that is fully consistent with

CBS’s editorial independence and the expressed intent of Congress

when it authorized the campaign. During the 1998-1999 television season, CBS received $3 million

for the broadcast of ONDCP’s anti-drug announcements. Our

agreement with ONDCP is simply that CBS matches, at least dollar for dollar, the money spent by ONDCP on the network. This

was done by the airing of ONDCP-paid PSAs and our own drug

anti-PSAs, and by credit received from ONDCP for certain network

entertainment programs with an anti-drug story line. CBS more

than fulfilled its $3 million commitment in 1998-1999 season with

a total of $4.5 million in PSAs and story-line credits. Of that $4.5

million, approximately $2.8 million was received for a combination

of ONDCP-produced PSAs and CBS PSAs, respectively. The remaining $1.7 million was credit received for airing of entertainment programming with a drug-related story line.

A total of four original program episodes qualified for the credit:

Touched By An Angel, the Cosby episode that you saw, Promised

Land, and L. A. Doctors. Each program was submitted, with the

sole intent of obtaining a yes or no answer, as to whether the program qualified for matching credits, not for the purpose of inviting

ONDCP edits. It is important to keep this in mind, drug abuse has

long been and continues to be one of CBS’s largest and most important PSA categories. In 1998, the television network donated $16.6

million in regular PSAs impacting drug abuse and mentoring unrelated to the ONDCP match. For 1999 that amount increased to

$17.9 million.

Before I conclude, I would like to address for a moment the concerns that many have expressed regarding first amendment righting being trampled. On numerous occasions, I have forcefully argued with many of you in defense of CBS’s first amendment rights.

At various times, some of you have agreed with the position I have

64

articulated while others agreed to disagree. I am not shy when it

comes to protecting and arguing for broadcasters’ rights in general,

and CBS’s in particular.

I welcome further discussion concerning how to further

broadcasting’s first amendment protection. But when we have that

discussion, please also consider the following among others: Our

first amendment rights is endangered when broadcasters are required to air a government-mandated amount of children’s television programming. Aren’t first amendment rights jeopardized

when government officials proposed tying license renewal to their

own notion of what is an acceptable level of sexual and violence

programming? Are we close to the first amendment line when we

are asked to rate our programs voluntarily by an administration in

Congress whose goodwill is essential to the deregulation we need

to compete and prosper?

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, while I can understand the theoretical concern many may have about the ONDCP

program, I am here to assure you that ONDCP does not make the

cut on my own personal list of threats to CBS’s first amendment

rights and editorial independence. Our intention of participating in

the ONDCP program was and is to act responsibly and serve the

public interest as was the Congress’s intent in launching this initiative. At no time have we felt that our creative integrity was

being compromised. If we had, we would have stopped doing business with ONDCP. In fact, hardly a week goes by without CBS telling an advertiser, frequently an advertiser with a much larger

budget than ONDCP, that we will not run the ad they are proposing because it contravenes CBS’s well-defined and long-standing

broadcast standards and practices. We do not have difficulty saying

no, whether to a Fortune 500 advertiser or to ONDCP if our standards are being undermined. Had ONDCP sought to do so, which

they did not, CBS would have refused.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. I will be happy

to answer your questions.

[The prepared statement of Martin D. Franks follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARTIN D. FRANKS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, CBS

CORPORATION

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today and

have the opportunity to discuss with you CBS’s participation in the ONDCP national media campaign. I am here because the CBS Television Network’s Broadcast

Standards and Practices department, which oversees our ONDCP relationship, reports to me.

I confess to being surprised at the news reports that circulated last month that

made it seem as if the networks and ONDCP have been engaged in secretive and

unseemly practices. In fact, from the program’s inception, CBS has done nothing

more than cooperate with ONDCP in a way that is fully consistent with CBS’s editorial independence and the express intent of Congress when it authorized the campaign.

As you will recall, this program was announced in 1998 by President Clinton,

Speaker Gingrich and General McCaffrey. At the time it received widespread bipartisan support. Upon its announcement it was the subject of numerous news reports,

and the very facet of the program now under question was widely reported and examined in the media.

The Drug Demand Reduction Act of 1998, the legislation authorizing this program, as well as relevant sections of the conference report, support the assertion

that Congress anticipated that the program would include both public service announcements and other cooperative activities by broadcast and other media; includVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:14 Jul 19, 2000 Jkt 063830 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\62969 pfrm07 PsN: 62969
65

ing credit to broadcast networks and the creative community for drug related

storylines. CBS’s activities in response to this Congressional program involved nothing that can reasonably be considered improper or a threat to our editorial independence.

Before describing for you CBS’s participation in the program, I think it is important to remember that the legislation which authorized the ONDCP program was

passed with overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle, with only nine votes

in opposition. Then Chairman of the National Security, International Affairs and

Criminal Justice Subcommittee, Congressman Dennis Hastert, spent an entire year

leading a bipartisan task force that produced this bold drug reduction initiative.

For our part, during the 1998-99 season CBS received $3 million dollars from the

ONDCP for the broadcast of ONDCP’s anti-drug announcements. The arrangement

between our network and the ONDCP is simply that CBS matches dollar for dollar

the money spent by the ONDCP on the network. This was done through the airing

of the ONDCP PSA’s, our PSA’s, and by credit received from ONDCP for certain

network entertainment programs with an ‘‘anti-drug’’ story line.

CBS fulfilled its $3 million commitment in the 1998-99 season and then some,

with a total of $4.5 million in PSA’s and storyline credits. Of that $4.5 million, approximately $2.8 million was received for a combination of ONDCP produced PSA’s

and CBS PSA’s respectively. The remaining $1.7 million was credit received for airing of entertainment programming with a drug related storyline. A total of 4 original programs and three repeats were aired and qualified for the credits. They were:

one original and one repeat of Touched by an Angel, one original and one repeat

of Cosby, one original and one repeat of Promised Land, and one original of LA

Docs. Of these four original programs, two scripts were submitted prior to airing

and two productions were submitted after broadcast. Each script or program was

submitted with the sole intent of obtaining a yes or no answer as to whether the

program qualified for matching credits, not for the purpose of inviting ONDCP edits.

And, in no case have programs been produced for the purpose of receiving ONDCP

credit. Let me add here—and I think it is important to keep this in mind—drug

abuse has long been and continues to be one of CBS’s largest and most important

PSA categories. In 1998, the TV network donated $16.6 million in regular PSA’s impacting drug abuse and mentoring—unrelated to the ONDCP match. For 1999 that

amount increased to $17.9 million.

Before I conclude, I would like to address for a moment the concerns that many

have expressed regarding First Amendment rights being trampled. On numerous occasions, I have forcefully argued with many of you in defense of CBS’s First Amendment rights. At various times, some of you have agreed with the position I articulated while others agreed to disagree. I am not shy when it comes to protecting and

arguing for broadcasters’ rights in general, and CBS’s in particular.

I welcome any further discussion concerning how to further broadcasting’s First

Amendment protections. But when we have that discussion, please also consider the

following, among others:

Are First Amendment rights endangered when broadcasters are required to air

a government-mandated amount of children’s television programming? Aren’t First

Amendment rights jeopardized when government officials propose tying license renewal to their own notion of what is an acceptable level of sexual and violent content in programming? Are we close to the First Amendment line when we are

‘‘asked’’ to rate our programs ‘‘voluntarily’’ by an administration and Congress

whose good will is essential to the deregulation we need to compete and prosper?

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, while I can understand the

theoretical concern many may have about the ONDCP program, I am here to assure

you that ONDCP does not make the cut on my own personal list of threats to CBS’s

First Amendment rights and editorial independence.

Our intention in participating in the ONDCP program was and is to act responsibly and serve the public interest, as was the Congress’ intent in launching this

initiative. At no time have we felt that creative integrity was being compromised.

If we had, we would have stopped doing business with ONDCP. In fact, hardly a

week goes by without CBS telling an advertiser, frequently an advertiser with a

much larger budget than ONDCP, that we will not run the ad they are proposing

because it contravenes CBS’s well defined and longstanding Broadcast Standards

and Practices. We do not have difficulty saying NO, whether to a Fortune 500 advertiser, or to ONDCP, if our standards are being undermined.

Had ONDCP sought to do so, which they did not, CBS would have refused. Thank

you for the opportunity to appear today. I will be happy to answer any questions

the Committee may have for me.

66

Mr. TAUZIN. The Chair will now recognize himself for a round of

questions. Let me get the facts on the table first of all. The facts

are, Dr. Vereen, that, at some point, your agency was prescreening

scripts, that scripts were being presented to you in advance of

being aired; is that correct?

Mr. VEREEN. No, that’s not the case. The fact is that in our interactive outreach to the networks, we provide technical information

to them——

Mr. TAUZIN. I know about that. I will get into that in a second.

But CBS testifies that on the record that of the four programs just

mentioned, two were submitted prior to airing by your agency. Is

that not correct?

Mr. VEREEN. That is what I am trying to explain to you. They

may be presented to us for technical assistance and we refer those

out to places like the National Institutes of Health, NIDA——

Mr. TAUZIN. You have changed your rules on that point? You no

longer reviewed television program episodes for possible government credit only after the episodes have been aired?

Mr. VEREEN. What you are doing is you are blurring the lines between the technical assistance that we give and what happens in

credit for the match.

Mr. TAUZIN. Let me ask you, Mr. Franks, why did you submit

those scripts to the agency? Was it for technical assistance?

Mr. FRANKS. No. As I testified, for a yes or no answer.

Mr. TAUZIN. Whether or not you get the credit?

Mr. FRANKS. Right.

Mr. TAUZIN. So scripts were being submitted for the purpose of

the agency deciding whether or not you got credit. Why are we getting two different sets of testimony on that point?

Mr. VEREEN. They submitted them for evaluation. It is a separate process. We passed that——

Mr. TAUZIN. Dr. Vereen, you announced in your latest statement

that this advice would now be offered separate from the review

process indicating that it was offered together with the review

process previously. Mr. Franks is testifying that they submitted

their scripts to you for a yes or no answer on whether or not credit

would be given. Are you denying that?

Mr. VEREEN. That is determined by our contractor by Ogilvy &

Mather.

Mr. TAUZIN. Whoever determines it, Dr. Vereen, are you denying

Mr. Franks’ statement that scripts were submitted for a yes or no

answer on the basis of whether they get a credit?

Mr. VEREEN. Yes. That has happened and the reason we needed

to clarify that was because of the confusion between providing technical assistance and things qualifying for the match. We don’t determine that.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Wallau, your network, upon hearing at this conference, that you had to submit your scripts before they were aired,

said no. I am not doing that. Your network was denied any credits

for program content; is that correct? Take the mike please, sir.

Mr. WALLAU. Mr. Chairman, I don’t know if we could have negotiated beyond that point where we said no, or whether we could

have done that after the fact and gotten some credit. We didn’t get

to that point in the negotiation. We just said we didn’t want to subVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:14 Jul 19, 2000 Jkt 063830 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\62969 pfrm07 PsN: 62969
67

mit scripts in advance and then negotiated a relationship with the

season which had a full PSA match. But the deal presented to us

at the time was we had to submit in advance.

Mr. TAUZIN. Submit in advance, you said no. You are the only

network now that gets credit on basis of PSAs you provide?

Mr. FRANKS. We have changed our policy also, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAUZIN. What is your policy?

Mr. FRANKS. We only submit programs after they have aired.

Mr. TAUZIN. Apparently, there has been a lot of changes. I am

trying to understand what was done before and what is being done

now. Mr. Wallau, as far as the facts are before these changes occurred in the government policy and the policy of CBS and others,

your network apparently was the only one who said we are not

submitting scripts in advance, and the result was you negotiated

a contract where you lost all content credits; is that correct?

Mr. WALLAU. Yes.

Mr. TAUZIN. Now, I want to ask you, Dr. Vereen, why do you

treat newspapers different than television? Newspapers, according

to the stories, never had content reviews and newspapers don’t get

any content credits. Television does. Why do you think it is appropriate to give dollar credits or credits to television stations on the

basis of your content reviews and while you are not doing that with

newspapers?

Mr. VEREEN. We don’t pay for news. That is the product that

newspapers present. We don’t give credit for things that would be

reported anyway. When a television network creates a show, once

they get information from NIDA or NIAAA or something, it is their

creative product. What they do with that information——

Mr. TAUZIN. Is an editorial a creative product? Why do you not

give credits to newspapers whose editorials contain good anti-drug

messages? Why do you, on the other hand, give credits to a television station that has a script that you approve of?

Mr. VEREEN. There are other ways that newspapers can provide

information——

Mr. TAUZIN. Other ways that television can’t.

Mr. VEREEN. That is right, and they do. ABC, for example,

created——

Mr. TAUZIN. I just want to note, and please be specific on this,

granted, that they can each do it very different ways, why did your

agency treat one media in one way and another media another way

when both have creative material which could contain content that

would either meet or not meet your criteria?

Mr. VEREEN. We made a decision not to pay for news.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Loeb, you wanted to respond.

Mr. LOEB. I just want to observe that I don’t think product placement or anti-placement would work in a newspaper. It is a whole

different ball of wax. It is not organic to the entertainment environment in which you can see the newspapers. I think in fairness to

ONDCP——

Mr. TAUZIN. I am going to wrap because I have got to. Let me

differ with you. It seems to me a good editorial in a newspaper scientifically decrying the use of drugs and urging young people not

to use them, et cetera, and giving out good information about why

it is harmful to their careers could be significantly as effective as

68

any hidden message in a television program. It just puzzles me

that the agency would be given credits for content in one media

and not the other.

Finally, let me say, Mr. Vereen, because I want to put this on

the record. I tend to agree with my colleague from New Mexico. I

am proud of that vote that we cast. I like the fact that we are doing

this. I think the way we are doing it, perhaps the way you did it

in looking at scripts in advance most particularly, is very troublesome. It is the implementation of it.

Second, I am pleased that you are changing. I am pleased that

CBS and others are changing their attitude about presubmitting

scripts to you. That troubles me more than any part of this. But

I am equally concerned about the fact that some media is going to

be given dollar credits for messages that we approve of in their programs when others are not, and in any case, that does, in fact,

threaten the first amendment position. I continue to be concerned

about that. We want to have more discussions about that with it.

I yield to my friend, Mr. Markey, for his questions.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Obviously,

there is no more important subject that we are going to take up

than the influences that the culture has on the behavioral patterns

of children in terms of their engaging in risk-taking behavior that

ultimately will come back to haunt them later on in their life.

Again, 50 percent of all disease in the United States is behaviorally

based. We have to deal with that reality. Let’s hope that we cure

cancer and other diseases. We are not sure. We can, through all of

the money in the world that we want at NIH, and hope that breakthroughs can be made in those diseases.

There are diseases, however, that we know we can do something

about if we can convince people early enough in their life not to engage in that kind of behavior. That is a much bigger near-term

payoff in terms of the health of our society and the cost to the Federal and State taxpayers in terms of taking care of these people

when the disease sets in that is directly resulted from engaging in

unhealthy behavior. I think this is as important a program as can

exist, because television is the most powerful influence, with the

exception their parents.

The tension that exists here, it seems to me in this program, is

one that is difficult to resolve. Either the government got involved

and altered or influenced scripts so that the taxpayers, that is the

public health dollars, got matched, so that we were targeting this

audience, or the TV networks were not influenced at all and all

they did was submit programs they were doing anyway, and they

got away from having to put on the matching PSAs; and we got

nothing for our money but they got something for free. That is not

good either. That is a waste of our money.

So what we are seeing here are a few scattered shows that are

calling for thousand of hours of programming, and they are showing us these few proud moments, and we get nothing. If, on the

other hand, we can see a dramatic increase as result of the kind

of the influence of a program like this, it is a difficult chicken and

egg problem we have here. We clearly believe that a lot of people

might be tempted in the movies.

69

Increasingly, when I go to the movies, I am seeing, as Mr. Loeb

says, all of this product placement. You can see James Bond smoking this cigarette, drinking this drink, driving this car, and looking

at this particular watch, and wearing his Briani this and that.

Then you have this anti-product question that you have to raise.

Can you influence people the other way, negatively.

So I think that from my perspective, I know that I drank a lot

of Bosco because big brother Bud Emory Army told me to drink it.

It was definitely built into the body of the show, the substance of

the show. That is why we had to pass laws saying the hosts of the

shows can’t say, um, um, good kids, drink that quart of milk and

some Bosco every day. Make sure mom gets some extra special for

you. We know that 68-year-old guy wasn’t slugging down that stuff

every day, but he was able to influence the 8-year-olds, if they were

reading the editorials.

I am not saying that the kids were smarter than I was. I think

they are getting their information largely from the same sources

that I did when I was a kid. So I think we have in a way that there

is almost some semantical—there is a terminological inexactitude

here that the program was implemented. I think that it can be resolved in ways that ultimately benefit the public. I would hope that

the networks would continue to work the drug office. I wish we had

a tobacco office and a gun office. I wish we had a sexual practices

office as well so that the networks could be engaged in an ongoing

basis with the education, technical help that comes from professionals like Dr. Vereen who have dedicated their lives as public

health service doctors to help reduce the incidence of later disease

that are exposed to these practices that our children——

So I guess my general view is that it would be a tragedy if the

networks decided they are just going to walk away from their responsibility to ensure that the lead character in a show where the

average 9- to 13-year-old girl is looking at some lead girl in the

show week after week as their model, and you have the missed the

opportunity of having that girl, as cool as she is, saying I am never

going to do drugs or smoke.

If we don’t see a show like that where you build in the main

character in one of those shows, then you are missing your own social responsibility. We shouldn’t even have a program like this to

be honest with you. You should be coming to us right now showing

us an entire program where you have a lead character who is

viewed as the coolest girl in town, and you advertise around that

program, and she is taking one or two major negative behavioral

patterns that she is saying she is not going to do it, and everyone

else in the school still thinks she is still the coolest kid going.

You don’t have a program like that, and that really troubles me

that you can’t show us that here, that we have to have a government program do it. I hope that this discussion actually puts a bigger spotlight on the networks, on the movies so that on an ongoing

basis now, you can answer the question as to what you did voluntarily, those of you who want to walk away from it. But don’t expect the Congress to go away. Don’t expect parents across the country to go away because unless you cooperate, they are going to be

fighting a losing battle in terms of changing these behavioral patterns.

70

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAUZIN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentlelady

from New Mexico is recognized.

Mrs. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must have missed the

Bosco thing. I admit when I come to these discussions, I enjoyed

seeing the excerpts and the public service announcements, but I

also seem somewhat out of touch because of those nine programs

or so that you showed clips from, I have never seen eight of them.

Somehow I feel like I may not have missed much, which is I guess

a good thing in some way.

I have some questions, Mr. Franks, for you. Of those shows that

you submitted for prior approval before you changed your policy,

did you get any ‘‘no’’ answers? You said you were looking for a yes

or no.

Mr. FRANKS. Yes, we did get some no’s.

Mrs. WILSON. What was your next step?

Mr. FRANKS. Move on.

Mrs. WILSON. Did the producers or the writers or the people involved creatively with those shows know what the network was

doing with respect to getting credits?

Mr. FRANKS. No, not in every instance early on. One of the

things I said when we changed our policy, when we looked at the

second year and we were trying to decide how to do this rationally

going forward, one of the things that we decided was in order to

avoid the kind of controversy that has arisen—we obviously weren’t

very successful—was that we would only admit shows after they

aired so there couldn’t be any question about their editorial independence.

In some instances we, the creators, were involved because in

some instances, they were shows that we also own. There was the

well-written, well-documented exercise where an episode of Chicago

Hope qualified. Interestingly enough, it was qualified by Fox, who

produces it. We did not submit it and we did not know that it had

qualified for the credit. There is some interesting recordkeeping exercises. But I think we could certainly do a better job as we go forward in making sure producers are aware.

Mrs. WILSON. As long as there is not a prior approval process?

Mr. FRANKS. Correct. For us there never has been a prior approval process in the sense that, again, the question——

Mrs. WILSON. Referring specifically, you said for a brief period of

time you did submit some programs for prior approval and then

changed——

Mr. FRANKS. Prior approval for yes or no answer, does it qualify

or not.

Mrs. WILSON. The question that then arises on my mind, and it

may, at this point, be theoretical, because you have changed your

policy, but I think it is important when we think about these

things and similar questions that may come up is if you have a no

answer and the producers and the writers knew that you got a no

answer, does that then again influence the way they write?

Mr. FRANKS. Congresswoman, I wish—the other part of my

standards and practices, if you will, is in dealing with writers and

producers when there are elements in their shows that we don’t

like. Steven Bochco thinks that I am probably the biggest prude on

71

the North American continent because of the things that I don’t

want to let him do in programs that he airs on CBS. We have an

ongoing dialog with producers about the content, pro and con, positive and negative. It is a pretty vigorous back and forth. It is not

an arms-length process when we are talking to them about the content of the programs on a weekly basis.

Mrs. WILSON. Thank you.

Dr. Vereen, with respect to other media, the chairman mentioned

newspapers. I have to say that I don’t know many kids that do the

editorial page either. But the question that I had was about other

entertainment media, particularly music, videos, movies, even

Sports Illustrated-kinds of things, or I guess in my wildest dreams,

Rolling Stone. Has the Office of Drug Control Policy ever sought to

give credit, or in some way compensate for content in any other

media?

Mr. VEREEN. Sure. In the case of the New York Times—by the

way——

Mrs. WILSON. I am not talking about paid clear advertising, but

content.

Mr. VEREEN. I got you. I made the point that we didn’t want to

get in the business of paying for news. First of all, the kids are not

reading the newspapers. In order to hit the kids, we only want to

support those things in the media match that would get messages

out to kids. But the New York Times developed——

Mrs. WILSON. Dr. Vereen, I am not talking about guides or those

kinds of things. I am talking about the analog of programming decisions, whether it is in movies, music, video games, other entertainment that may be disguised as a message. Has the Office of

Drug Control Policy ever compensated anybody else or given them

credits or anything else in any of those other entertainment media?

Mr. VEREEN. For example, in MTV, everything that gets satisfied

in the match oral ads, okay, sometimes there are featured stories

that are offered on occasion. I think you saw something on ABC

that was a story that was presented, but they tend to not happen

very often when it does happen.

Mrs. WILSON. I think I would like to know, and this may be

something you need to take back, as to whether and when it has

happened. I am not talking about networks or the advertisements

on MTV, but if we are talking about—if the Office of Drug Control

Policy provided some kind of compensation to a rap artist for doing

an antidrug song, I would kind of like to know that. If you could

take that for the record.

Mr. VEREEN. Let me offer a clarification and go over some things

I presented before very quickly. The time here doesn’t allow for the

full explanation of a very complicated relationship. The relationship that we have with the networks or any other group is voluntary. We buy time and space in order to place the ads that have

been developed pro bono that are antidrug. Once we buy the time

and space, that determines the pro bono match. That determines

the public service obligation that we expect. It is a voluntary thing.

What counts, in terms of serving back that obligation, has a set of

criteria which I ran through too quickly.

Mrs. WILSON. Doctor, I understand all that, but I hope that you

understand the distinction that is being made here between a

72

match from a public service campaign or a program that is produced and written by somebody for CBS submitted after the fact,

and submitting scripts in advance for some kind of compensation

with a hidden governmental message. That, to me, is the fundamental issue. My time has expired.

Mr. VEREEN. I’m not sure I get that. I apologize.

Mr. TAUZIN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The credits you

give to newspapers is often for programs directed to parents and

guardians.

Mr. VEREEN. Yes, that is true.

Mr. TAUZIN. My point stands. I just want you to think about

that. I yield to my friend from California, Ms. Eshoo.

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you to all of the witnesses that have offered

their reflections to the questions that our colleagues have asked.

Let me start with Dr. Vereen. Have you looked into working with

any of the websites?

Mr. VEREEN. Oh, sure. We have a huge interactive——

Ms. ESHOO. Could you tell us about that program briefly but give

us the meat of that. I can’t help but think with what, some 80 million Americans on-line today and in a handful of years is projected

to be 117 million, maybe it is just me. Most of these programs that

you showed, I have to confess, I haven’t even heard of. I don’t

watch TV. I don’t know how many kids are watching all of this.

Obviously, in marketing you want to get your message out to as

broad an audience as possible. Any one of us that wants great assistance relative to the Web or the Internet hire young people to

do that, not people that are older than ourselves. So can you tell

us what the office has done so far and how much of that market

you think you have penetrated?

Mr. VEREEN. Your question actually gets right to the heart of the

challenge that we have. The experts told us that you have to go

after the kids. And they are not always watching television. Sometimes they are listening to radio. A recent report told us that

more——

Ms. ESHOO. I have another question to ask, so maybe you could

tell me directly to my question.

Mr. VEREEN. We have a number of Internet sites where kids can

go and get information. When we first started out this campaign,

when you punched in a key word, you got the wrong message about

drugs.

Ms. ESHOO. Do you advertise on the net?

Mr. VEREEN. Certainly. And the net is also there for the parents

as well. We got word from parents that they didn’t know what to

tell their kids. They didn’t have the facts about drugs.

Ms. ESHOO. Do you have any way of measuring?

Mr. VEREEN. Yes, we do. We have tons of information about how

these sites have become quite popular over time, over just a short

time that we have had this media campaign.

Ms. ESHOO. When did you begin it?

Mr. VEREEN. The Internet part of the campaign was launched actually here in this building last fall.

Ms. ESHOO. Was that the beginning of your agency’s entire effort?

73

Mr. VEREEN. With the Internet, the official launching of the

Internet. Prior to that, ABC had developed an Internet site on their

own. It was an idea that they came up with for which they got

credit.

Ms. ESHOO. I don’t know what your hits are, but——

Mr. WALLAU. We had 6 million on the ABC site——

Ms. ESHOO. If I were a kid using drugs, I don’t think I would go

to your site to find out how to stop using them. I think that there

has to be kind of a subliminal way——

Mr. WALLAU. It was not an ABC site. It was a site set up specifically for an antidrug message, the name of it I wish I could——

Mr. VEREEN. Freevibe.

Mr. WALLAU. Free buy.

Ms. ESHOO. I don’t want to diminish what you are doing. We

need all the help we can get. What it sounds like, it may need to

be more finer tuned and pitched, so that it really reaches far more.

I still buy Tide. There must be some kind of reason for that. I

haven’t tried anything else. But I guess all of those hits were successful. Thank you for what you just told me.

I want to go to Jeff Loeb. Jeff, do you think, in your opinion, that

the new regulations that the ONDCP has taken on that you mentioned in your testimony, that they will really promote the antidrug

material, that they are effective?

Mr. LOEB. As far as I understand those regulations and I admit

to being as baffled as everybody else the way this story has unfolded, yes, I think they are a smart move. I think what the chairman has raised, and the member from New Mexico really were

talking about here is there is a real question here. The question is,

does government have the ability and the willingness to be an effective marketer or not? That is a balancing act that is way above

my head in terms of what the competing institutional interests are.

Where does the limit go and do you want to be paying rap artists

to do stories like that?

The trick here is, and the reason why I argue so strongly in my

remarks for disclosure is——

Ms. ESHOO. I think that is the key.

Mr. LOEB. [continuing] that basically at the end of the day—this

is all about perception. This is what I do for a living, basically. I

hate to admit it. Advertising is much perception as reality. The fact

of this hearing and the news stories that transpired after all this

broke, which is really an Internet-generated news story is astonishing to me. Basically, what you’re trying to do is find a way to

control perceptions in a way that you can reach in an effective way,

which I think the ONDCP is trying to do without getting themselves into hot water over the fact of the implementation of the policy.

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. I think my time is up, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your excellent testimony.

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from California, Mr. Cox is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. COX. Thank you. I can’t tell from reading your statement,

Mr. Wallau, whether or not you believe that ONDCP’s reduction in

the amount of advertising that they bought from you was connected

to the fact that you told them that you weren’t going to go along

74

with their new program of looking at the scripts in advance. I do

note the figures that for the period July 1998 through September

1999 ONDCP bought nearly $40 million worth of advertising. Following the discussions that you had about preapproval of scripts,

they bought $18 million for the upcoming season. So far they have

bought $6 million and you have aired $9.8 million in match value.

Mr. WALLAU. Right. Just so we are clear, Congressman, the $6 million is part of that $18 million. We are about a third of the way

into this season.

Mr. COX. I understand. Since the first was a 15-month period, on an annual basis that is about $31 million. An apples-to-apples comparison is $31 million to $18 million. Why the diminution in the

purchases from ONDCP?

Mr. WALLAU. There were a number of components to it, some of

which had to do with other changes in the qualification criteria for

other areas such as the website, for instance. We had done a

website in cooperation—I think we both agree was quite successful

when the criteria came out for the second season. The match—I am

sorry, we wanted the website continue to be a match for a buy

made on our website, ABC.com. The agency that the ONDCP

worked with didn’t want that to happen. They wanted it to be as

part of the match for the telephone—television buy and that was

just in negotiation with the agencies.

Mr. COX. Did you get anything like $31 million out of the government this year?

Mr. WALLAU. We haven’t begun that negotiation. Those start in

May. We are willing to go up that high and match with PSAs. We

went up to $18.5 million this year. We are willing to continue to

go higher. We didn’t get that amount of money from the agency

when they awarded the bid. I can’t tell you what the agency’s

thought process was, Congressman.

Mr. COX. It appears, in any case, that the government is in a position as purchaser to influence you to the extent that you are willing to sell to them and they are, at the same time, in a position

to buy less if they are not extending their influence.

Mr. WALLAU. That is accurate, but there is one more component,

that is, are we willing to give up the match of the PSAs in the

$18.5 million that we went forward with this year, we also were

willing to format that into our schedule, $18.5 million of additional

PSA time. We were willing to do that. Other networks made other

choices. So the limiting factor is not just whether the agency wants

to give us the money in return for the $18.5 million. There is another component of whether we are willing to give up that time, especially in a marketplace like we have right now where we can

make significantly more money with that time than we are making

in selling it in the upfront to the ONDCP.

Mr. COX. I wonder if I could ask Mr. Corn-Revere, if I understand you correctly, you are concerned about the use of Federal

funds to induce networks to broadcast and officially approve messages; is that right?

Mr. CORN-REVERE. That is right.

Mr. COX. Much has been made, not only in your presentation,

but also in other coverage on this of the fact that opposition to recreational drug use is pretty much agreed all around. It is a socially

75

responsible message. If government is influencing content, but it is

doing it on such a benign point that nobody really cares, are we

losing a lot of ground? And to give you an analogous way, perhaps

to address the question, when the Nazis marched in Skokie, we

were told that it is protecting unpopular speech that is the test of

whether we have a first amendment. So might it also be the case

adversely that rejecting a popular message from the government is

likewise the test of whether we can reject government influence on

the content of broadcast television?

Mr. CORN-REVERE. It is a very interesting question, because I

think the popularity in the socio-utility of the message does make

this a much more difficult issue to confront.

Mr. COX. Let me move down the margin just a bit while you are

answering the question, because the Federal Government and Congress and the President have agreed to put Federal tax dollars behind abstinence education. What if the Federal Government were

pushing abstinence education PSAs, would it make it harder?

Mr. CORN-REVERE. Yes, I think as you add more issues to the

mix of those that would be promoted, both by PSAs and by some

kind of match, it might be inserted into entertainment programs.

You multiply the number of possible points of disagreement, the

numbers of ways in which the issue can become politicized and as

a result, it goes against the grain of the very kinds of things that

I believe the first amendment was designed to prevent.

Mr. COX. What should we do?

Mr. CORN-REVERE. I wouldn’t presume to advise you on that

point. I would say that I think any program that tends to encourage the use of mixing government messages with entertainment

without—and certainly without disclosing to the public what is

going on raises danger flags.

Mr. COX. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would just observe

that it is incumbent upon the parties to these transactions to maintain as rigid a wall of separation between what is government and

what is not as possible, so that if these are market transactions

and the government is purchasing a message that you object to and

it is labeled as such, that everybody is protected all around. But

if it is done in this more cozy way in which you can’t tell which

side of the wall we are on, that we have infected, in fact, the content, and we have very explicitly agreed that the government is influencing the message and that we are okay with that.

Mrs. WILSON [presiding]. Thank you.

The gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. SAWYER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just wanted to

take a moment to make clear that Mr. Markey and I will not be

offering our version of Robin Hood on the Internet in digital form.

I also, at the risk of embarking down a pathway of mutual assured

destruction, I want to point out that Mr. Franks and I went to the

same high school, and that Steven Bochco couldn’t be more wrong.

He is not the biggest prude in North America, but he is very discrete.

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Congressman. I will tell him you said

so.

Mr. SAWYER. I keep hearing undertones in all of this of fear and

triumph of the will and all that sort of thing. Let me emphasize,

76

I don’t think anybody up here views anybody at that table being

embarked on something like that. What we are really concerned

about more than anything else is something that I know that you

share as much as we do, and that is preserving the integrity of the

message. It is critical to its success, and it is put at risk by many

of the things that we are asking questions about today. I am particularly interested, as we had submissions to the commission, I

gather you were not seeking guidance. Did you receive offers of

guidance, Mr. Franks?

Mr. FRANKS. I don’t believe so. I am almost certain that we

didn’t. Again, partly because we also weren’t soliciting it. Long before ONDCP came along, we had a fair amount of experience at the

question of prosocial themes. I mean, the classic case being Jay

Winston’s Harvard program on designated drivers. We have a number of people that we regularly turn to for advice when we need

it and I don’t—with respect, I don’t think we felt that we needed

ONDCP’s help in figuring out antidrug messages.

Mr. SAWYER. And it is not your recollection it was offered gratuitously?

Mr. FRANKS. No.

Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Wallau, is that essentially your experience?

Mr. WALLAU. We didn’t submit any.

Mr. VEREEN. Perhaps it wasn’t very clear. We, ONDCP, doesn’t

approve any scripts. I think where some of the confusion has come

in is that scripts came into us for valuation or determination of

whether they counted in the match.

Mr. SAWYER. I am just talking about eligibility and that’s all you

are talking about as well, is it not? Eligibility for the match?

Mr. VEREEN. Yes. The appearance that we had undue influence

and the reason why we had to clarify the rules about when submissions would occur, is why we stated clearly we will only—our partner, Ogilvy & Mather, will only—evaluate something for the match

after it has been aired. So there is no question about us interfering

with the creative process.

Mr. SAWYER. I am only asking, however, whether you ever offered unsolicited guidance with regard to——

Mr. VEREEN. Yes. That is a part of the media campaign. We have

an outreach program. We are authorized to use dollars to go to the

creative community. We do a presentation. General McCaffrey presents what I just presented to you, what the media campaign is

about. We have either Dr. Leshner or myself presenting the

science, stuff that people don’t know about, haven’t heard of, and

they take that information and they run with it like they have

never run with it before. You have seen what they have come up

with.

Now, if you want to call that influence, call it influence. All we

have done is pay attention to a public health issue. This is not——

Mr. SAWYER. I am going to run out of time. I apologize. But I do

understand the distinction that you are making. Mr. Loeb, you

were about at one point to, I think, to make a distinction between

the environment of fictional entertainment and news depiction.

Would you like to finish that thought?

Mr. LOEB. Yes. I am baffled as to how—if you buy an editorial,

you are buying an opinion, and I don’t think entertainment is the

77

same thing. I think Mr. Corn-Revere, I don’t want to speak for you,

but I guess it would be a whole different thing. This comes down

to the efficacy of marketing tactics, where do you reach kids, particularly, where do you reach their parents and how do you do that

kind of thing. Does that help answer your question? Does that help

answer——

Mr. SAWYER. It does. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mrs. WILSON. Do you have further questions, Mr. Cox?

Mr. COX. Yes, just to pick up with Dr. Vereen on this point of

who is influencing whom to do what. If we have a government message, which we do here, I guess my hope would be that we would

label it as such, that there wouldn’t be any question that it is a

government message.

Mr. Franks says at CBS they don’t need the government’s help

in figuring out socially responsible programs, certainly not in any

drug message they can do that on their own. So if it is a matter

of sticking it in the program, we then follow our original premise

that we would want government content to be labeled as such. Do

you not trust the networks to do antidrug programming messages

on their own?

Mr. VEREEN. They have been doing a fabulous job, but as I pointed out earlier, there was a 30 percent decrease in the PSAs that

were being run. So we wanted to change that.

Mr. COX. But you could buy those.

Mr. VEREEN. And that is what we are doing. We are buying the

time to be able to air those.

Mr. COX. Then you go one step further and leverage what you

are buying with influence on the programming itself.

Mr. VEREEN. Because the science tells us that in order for the

message to get into these kids, it is not just the ads. It has to be

the television. It has to be the Internet. It has to be programs in

the community.

Mr. COX. Can’t we go beyond that and say that is true about

more than drug use?

Mr. VEREEN. Yes, there are other health issues.

Mr. COX. Not just other health issues, but all sorts of issues in

the popular culture that are very much under discussion these

days. We have had hearings in this very subcommittee on the topic.

And of course we have a rating system in place that addresses

itself to some of these very questions. Would we want the government to take its concerns in this area directly into the programming?

Mr. VEREEN. I can’t really speak for any other area. We have focused only on the drug issue and the things that relate to it. That

is all we have done.

Mr. COX. Are you prepared, as a result of the discussion that’s

occurred thus far in the public, to pursue the purchase of PSAs and

withdraw from the influence of the programming itself as a government agency?

Mr. VEREEN. I can say this, that it would really make the effort

that we have put forth to deal with the prevention of drug abuse

in this country by kids, it would really harm the effort.

Mr. COX. That would be true only if the networks stopped doing

it. The question is whether Mr. Franks is telling us the straight

78

story when he says that CBS doesn’t need the government to tell

them how to do this.

Mr. VEREEN. Well, actually, we don’t tell them how to do it. We

provide them information and they——

Mr. COX. Let me ask Mr. Franks. Is it the case that not only you

can figure it out on your own, but also you would do it on your

own?

Mr. FRANKS. In fact, we didn’t commission any of these scripts

to meet the ONDCP match. We saw that they were coming in the

pipeline and then seized on them. Frankly, one of the reasons that

we thought long and hard about participating in this program in

the first place was that we would end up sort of exactly where we

are today, with a controversy about whether or not we were giving

full value, or whether it was a fair bargain with the government,

and we were afraid that there would be no way for us to—it would

seem somehow that we were overcharging or double-billing, and

frankly, that is part of where we are today, and it is part of our

frustration.

It partly stems from the Congress having said to the agency, you

know, go out and do a buy-one-get-one-free program. It is not a

marketplace rate. And so, it then sets us all off in a scramble as

to how best to do that, and sets up an inevitable controversy about

why are you paying for something that the networks were going to

do anyway. Or are you getting fair value for the taxpayer’s dollar.

It is not a position that we are very happy being in the middle of.

Mr. COX. I asked Mr. Corn-Revere a moment ago what we should

do on the specific question——

Mr. FRANKS. We sell the government advertising time, you know,

recruiting, all kinds—we would be happy to sell the government

advertising time.

Mr. COX. Do you view the current program as essentially a mandate to sell the government advertising——

Mr. FRANKS. We feel much more mandated by the notion of what

might happen, how we might be viewed by the public if we weren’t

cooperating in an area in which there is an overwhelming national

consensus. We too will have to make a decision in May about how

we want to proceed going forward. We are not very happy about

having been drawn into this particular controversy.

Mr. COX. I appreciate it. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Markey.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. Thank you very much. Again, I am

going to do a full disclosure here since I do have a governmental

interest. My wife has been a public health service doctor for 18

years. So I definitely have a bias in terms of insuring that information, which is what public health service doctors do. They are not

surgeons. They are not internists. They get information into people’s hands. They make sure that everyone knows what it is that

they have to do. And so on the one hand, I guess, you have got kind

of mandatory programs where we want to make sure every child

gets all those inoculations. All these things we have up on our arm

come from Federal programs to make sure children get protected

against bad things that can happen to them physically. Here,

though, we have a program that isn’t mandated. It is all voluntary,

all voluntary. But we know, of course, the mind can be just as disVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:14 Jul 19, 2000 Jkt 063830 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\62969 pfrm07 PsN: 62969
79

eased as the body, and we know that if you get a child early

enough, that you can hopefully build in the same kind of preventative attitudes mentally as we try to build in through drugs physically.

So I am really actually a little bit troubled by this whole hearing

because I am not sure that we haven’t been running in least in

part a program whereby networks have been able to get something

for nothing because we can’t have it both ways here. Either they

were influenced and as a result we have this dramatic increase or

they weren’t influenced. And we don’t have a problem.

Mr. FRANKS. No good deed goes unpunished.

Mr. MARKEY. It is kind of, you know, a waste fraud and abuse

part of this. It is like a welfare. There is a food stamp issue here.

We are handing out food stamps to people who may or may not

merit it.

Mr. FRANKS. It is one of the reasons why we overdelivered—why

we sought to overdeliver in the first season because we were trying—precisely trying to avoid the suggestion that we were somehow bilking the government. The fact that we overdelivered did not

show up in the Salon.com articles.

Mr. WALLAU. Let me just say to the question of what the government and the taxpayers got for their money, and ABC—I can’t

speak for everybody else because I don’t know the figures—for the

$39 million that was spent in the first 15 months on ABC, you

have got the $39 million which you bought so you didn’t get anything for that except value. But you have $34 million of free time,

more than double our previous PSA commitment that made a significant, I believe, impact, forget the programming. We were going

to do that programming anyway. We can talk about that however

we want. We didn’t do that programming in order to qualify it for

this match. We submitted it afterwards, because the rules said you

could take strong programming like that, which is powerful and

has influence on people.

Mr. MARKEY. That show on ‘‘The Practice,’’ by the way, I saw it

in its entirety when it ran. It was really one of the greatest programs I have seen.

Mr. WALLAU. The point I am trying to make is that the proposition that you have before you and we have before us and trying

to figure out how to participate in this program going forward, we

went after it in big numbers. You saw—$39 million is a lot of—it

may not be big in the $4 billion revenue stream that we get, but

maybe in that big picture, peanuts as previously described, but we

went after that because we felt strongly that we wanted to have

a PSA, would take up our PSA commitment.

Here is a way to take up our PSA commitment by tens of millions of dollars, $34 million. We actually didn’t think we would go

that high. We overshot it. We thought we would be closer with the

balance of a programming match, but we wound up, to Marty’s

point, overdelivered.

So we went higher on PSAs, we went higher on programming.

We overdelivered on both. The taxpayers got $34 million of public

service advertisements that had impact, and that is the proposition. Is the $4 million in change or programming match that we

had in that, that we would have done anyway, that we got for—

80

essentially we got for nothing. That is part of the overall proposition. I can’t speak for ourselves. I am sorry, I can’t speak for others. I can say for ourselves we were willing to do in the second year

a one-for-one, no-programming, PSA for—PSA match, and we have

for $18.5 million. Still a lot of money. But that may not be true for

everybody else. What you have to look at is the overall proposition

for the network. Is the revenue received in combination with the

PSA time that has to be taken out of sale, no longer produce revenue, in combination with what you get as a programming match?

Is that an appealing enough proposition to combine your economic

interest with your pro bono, your public service interest, does that

make sense, and every network has to make that decision for themselves.

Mr. MARKEY. Do you agree with Dr. Vereen that it is a much

more powerful message to have an antidrug message coming from

the mouth of a character respected by teenagers, adolescents? Do

you agree with that?

Mr. WALLAU. I defer to Dr. Vereen’s history in the business. I

think people identify with programming more than they do with

commercials, yes.

Mr. MARKEY. Do you agree that it is more powerful when it does

come out of the mouths of a character?

Mr. FRANKS. With all due respect to my friends at ABC, there

are an awful lot of people that watch the Super Bowl for the commercials. I think——

Mr. MARKEY. Not in St. Louis.

Mr. FRANKS. You are not going to catch me saying that commercials, particularly—some of the historic ad council spot, this is your

brain, this is your brain on drugs, I am not sure that that isn’t

pretty darn effective stuff.

Mr. MARKEY. I am talking about a child. In terms of influencing

a child that having a character who is——

Mr. FRANKS. It is certainly effective. Whether it is more effective,

I am not qualified.

Mr. MARKEY. Would you accept the expert opinion of Dr. Vereen

and public health service?

Mr. FRANKS. Happily.

Mr. MARKEY. So do you consider this a good program?

Mr. WALLAU. It was a good program from our point of view. It

coincided at a time when we thought we wanted to take up our

public service commitment. It allowed us to do that and get some

revenue at the same time as we got up to a certain point that we

felt comfortable with in terms of public service. So from our point

of view, it was a good program. We wanted to participate. We aggressively participated.

Mr. MARKEY. Do you think it is a good program?

Mr. FRANKS. Yes. I think anything that makes progress on drug

abuse is a good program. Clearly in its—somehow or other, we are

here today not because everybody thinks that it has been a wonderful success and, you know, with all due respect, I would rather be

somewhere else this afternoon.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Loeb, do you think it is a good program?

Mr. LOEB. Yes, sir.

Mr. MARKEY. You do?

81

Mr. LOEB. Could I add one thing that maybe will help. The real

issue is implementation. As I understand it—I don’t know the full

fact pattern here, but what I understand was that there was a

mandate to basically do a two-for-one match in the upfront. So

given that, the agency, which I know is mercury at the time, or

whatever goes back to the networks and say they want one-for-one

in the face of the hottest advertising market in the history.

Mr. WALLAU. That is just not so. That is one of the real inaccuracies that is out there, at least—I can’t speak for anybody else, but

the process was, in no way, what was described in that Salon.com

article, which we could go through all the inaccuracies in that

which are staggering. But the one thing that is the most offensive

is that what happened was there was a process between the networks and ONDCP, in which the networks said we don’t like that

one-for-one match. Let’s work out another way where we can use

some money, but we can get some credit for programming. Just

didn’t happen. Absolutely, absolutely, categorically did not happen.

Mr. MARKEY. You agree with that?

Mr. FRANKS. Yes. If we are going to go through the Salon.com article, I hope you can all be here till the end of the week.

Mr. WALLAU. That never happened. What happened was there

was a proposition, a set of guidelines put out by the ONDCP and

their agency the first year which was Zenith Media, and we looked

at the guidelines and we decided whether we wanted to participate,

and we got into a negotiation with the agency, not with ONDCP,

but the agency representing them. There was never any change in

that. That stayed the same way from day one. There was no conspiracy with the five station networks, to get the—that was in

place from day one, didn’t change, changed the second year in ways

that we described. But there was nothing where the networks came

and said, you know what, guys, you are not going to get one-forone. You have got to put some programming match into it to make

it palatable for us. Didn’t happen.

Mr. MARKEY. Let me ask you this. On a scale of 10, with 10

being some great challenge to the constitutional rights of the networks to be able to retain their first amendment rights of free

speech, where would you put this as a controversy?

Mr. WALLAU. I can only speak for ABC. This is a zero because

we did not—none of the programming that we have in the match

that is part of the public record, none of it was done, none of the

content that we aired was changed because of a financial incentive

from the ONDCP, none.

Mr. MARKEY. Where would you put it, Mr. Loeb?

Mr. LOEB. I would put it as zero as well.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Corn-Revere, in the totality of all the challenges of the first amendment, where would you put this?

Mr. CORN-REVERE. I don’t know that I could put this on a numerical scale, but I think——

Mr. MARKEY. Let me move on. Mr. Franks?

Mr. FRANKS. As I said——

Mr. MARKEY. You have got to cooperate.

Mr. FRANKS. He makes the rules. As I said in my testimony, it

doesn’t make my list. The list of threats, it is not on there.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. Mr. Corn-Revere, I am sorry.

82

Mr. CORN-REVERE. I think I just addressed this in the same

terms that you raised when you mentioned that the FCC prohibits

host selling on programs for a good reason. The judgment by the

FCC is that the American public deserves to know who is the puppeteer behind the host. I think it is equally true when the government is the puppeteer as when it is someone placing a product.

Mr. MARKEY. If you understand, Mr. Corn-Revere, the reason we

had hearings on that in the 1950’s was that we didn’t think the

host should be promoting that every child should have a huge glass

of Bosco every day, or should be buying dangerous toys that the

host is—we never had hearings saying that the rest of the program

with Big Brother Bob Emory each day at noontime, when I came

home as every other child in Massachusetts, for a bowl of tomato

bisque and a peanut butter sandwich with our mom who was home

in the 1950’s when they were telling us to engage in good behavior.

Big Brother, there were never any hearings, and no mom, no dad

ever complained about it because it was reinforcing what they were

hearing at home.

I think Mr. Cox was raising a good point, differentiating, you

know, the benign nature of what really we are talking about in

terms of how parents, how our society would be viewing what the

government is trying to achieve, which is a public health service

message most effectively delivered to the most vulnerable audience

in a way that didn’t compromise the first amendment rights of the

broadcasters who we all want to protect, but working out some

message by which there could be a cooperative relationship that

advances that goal, so that we do deal now with a science that was

in its nascent form when I was a kid but now is more profoundly

understood in terms of the impact it can have on children in our

society. I thank you.

Mrs. WILSON. I just have a couple of final questions, one for Mr.

Wallau. You had a slightly different experience than Mr. Franks

with respect to his request for previewing of scripts, and then my

colleague, Mr. Cox pointed out the difference in the budget. And

maybe this is peanuts, but if I were the guys that had that account, I would kind of be upset that it got cut in half if I am the

sales guy for this network. Straight question, straight answer. If

you don’t want to answer, that is fine too. Do you feel that you got

punished for taking the position you did about previewing scripts?

Mr. WALLAU. No. Because I think the intent of the ONDCP is to

get as many of its PSA messages out as possible. So it is counterproductive for them to take down a network who is willing to put

out more PSAs, especially when we are willing to do it on a—a onefor-one, PSA-only match. It seems counterproductive to me that the

people who run, and I think sincerely are trying to do the right

thing at the ONDCP, would punish us.

This thing that is—that I am trying to get across is that we, in

a sense, by doing this financially, are punishing ourselves. This is

done in a financial detriment to us, so that the more money they

take—I am sorry, the more money they buy in our network, the

more it costs our network. I am not sure that is an equation I have

articulated as well as I can. So the negotiation that came out at

$18.5 million net for this season was one negotiated for a number

of reasons, and it had only to do with the television buy. It didn’t

83

have to do with a number of other components that were in the $39

million buy. There was not an Internet component to it. Their

budget was cut. There are a number of other factors, and I really

don’t believe we suffered in the amount of money that was bought

by the agency on our air.

Mrs. WILSON. Thank you. I want to thank all of you for coming

today. This has been—while this may not rate above a 1 on the

scale of first amendment issues that you have to deal with, and

this committee has to deal with, it has, nonetheless, raised and in

many ways, answered some interesting questions. Others still remain as questions for me. Probably the central one being, okay,

was this something for nothing, because you do it anyway on the

content of the programming, or was it influencing in some broader

context the contents of the programming that would be offered, so

that it would qualify for the credit, because you can’t have—only

my mother could have it both ways.

And I think that is a legitimate and still-open question. The

other question that still lingers in my mind is, Mr. Franks, you use

a phrase that is also one of my husband’s favorites, which is ‘‘no

good deed goes unpunished.’’ That then raises the question, if you

are paid for a good deed, is it either a waste of money or does the

deed, in some way, become tainted because it is no longer a voluntary good deed. And I could come up with answers to that question. I really only pose it in a rhetorical way because it does raise

that question for those in public life or in corporate public life who

are trying to do the right thing. And I think that that is a question

still on the table.

I was not around in the 1950’s, but I think Mr. Markey made a

good point, which is ultimately the question here, who is the puppeteer, and if the puppeteer is the U.S. Government, I think, as a

parent and as an occasional watcher of television, I would like to

know that. And I am glad that the networks have made the decisions they have made ultimately and that the Office of Drug Control Policy has made its decision with respect to the previewing of

scripts, so that that bright line can remain a much brighter line.

And I thank all of you for your time for giving up your vacation

from your family and for spending the time with us today. The

hearing is concluded and the subcommittee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

THE NEW YORK TIMES

NEW YORK, NY

February 8, 2000

Congressman W.J. BILLY TAUZIN

Chairman

Committee On Commerce

House Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection

2183 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515-6155

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The purpose of this letter is to clarify the relationship of

The New York Times education efforts with the National Youth Anti-Drug Media

Campaign of the Office of National Drug Control Policy,

The guiding principle in all we do, including the preparation of our Anti-Drug

Educator’s Guide, is to safeguard The Times’s editorial integrity. This means that

New York Times Journalists and Editorial Board members we’re not involved in

writing, reviewing or editing the Guide.

The Educator’s Guide, a product of our Circulation Department, encourages the

use of The Times in schools and helps serve the needs of educators. This is very

84

separate from the ONDCP ads and pro bono match with our Advertising Department.

Therefore, to set the public record straight, there are some additional specific

points we would like the Subcommittee to know about the Guide:

NYT Editorial Integrity

• The Educator’s Guide contains an introduction, lessons and a list of resources

written by an outside education expert, and reviewed by other outside education

experts.

• The Guide also includes reprints of previously published NYT articles. Obviously

these articles, because they are reprints, could not have been influenced or reviewed by any outside agency, government or otherwise.

NYT Business-Side Program

• The Guide is purely a program from the business-side of the newspaper.

• The Guide is the Circulation Department’s equivalent of the Advertising Department’s advertorial, paid promotional content written by outside writers separate

from our news-side. All advertorials include a highly-visible disclaimer that the

NYT news-side was not involved in its content. The purpose of the disclaimer

is to make sure all our readers know they are reading advertising copy.

• In the future, and as a result of the public misunderstandings about this Guide,

all NYT business-side educational material will include a similar highly-visible

disclaimer.

NYT Leadership Role as Good Corporate Citizen

• We view the Educator’s Guide an one example of the NYT business-side’s long

history of supporting public service and educational messages.

We hope this clarifies the point that The Times’s news content is totally independent of the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s programs and its media campaign.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time and attention.

Sincerely,

SCOTT H. HEEKIN-CANEDY

Senior Vice President, Circulation