Pubdate: Mon, 31 Jul 2000
Source: Munster Times (IN)
Copyright: 2000 The Munster Times
Contact:  The Times, 601 45th Ave., Munster, IN 46321
Fax: (219) 933-3249
Website: http://www.thetimesonline.com/
Author: Jeanette Lach

DRUG CZAR WANTS HOLLYWOOD TO SEND ANTI-DRUG MESSAGES

Some question what government's influence on media should
be.

Don't use drugs, baby.

That's not a phrase you'd expect to hear in a summer blockbuster
movie. But a White House proposal to use Hollywood to spread the
anti-drug message has some worried "Big Brother" could be lurking at
the local cinema.

Gen. Barry McCaffrey, director of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy, earlier this month proposed in congressional testimony to work
more closely with Hollywood directors, writers and studios to promote
films that communicate accurate depictions of drug abuse and send an
anti-drug message.

The plan comes on the heels of criticism McCaffrey received for
financial credit his office gave to television networks for including
anti-drug messages in such shows as "ER," "Chicago Hope," "Cosby" and
others.

McCaffrey spokesman Bob Weiner said any plan with Hollywood would be
conducted on a voluntary basis.

But the mere mention of movies and messages has opened dialogue once
again among legal experts, civil libertarians and the artistic
community about the government's influence on the media.

"We're reviewing these (movies) for accuracy of what? Of someone's
view of drugs?" asked Ed Yohnka, spokesman for the Chicago branch of
the American Civil Liberties Union.

"I don't see anyone getting the opportunity to do that for the
behavior of police or tax policies. I think people are pretty much
smart enough to distinguish between what's reality and what's pretend
on television or the movies," Yohnka said. "No one on television or
the movies has to look for a parking space. I think people are smart
enough to know life doesn't work that way."

McCaffrey's plan also includes linking his anti-drug campaign with
promotional events for newly released films.

While McCaffrey emphasizes his office is not concerned with creative
control, just the specter of White House bureaucrats fiddling with a
script is already a cause for concern, some say.

McCaffrey's office had been reviewing some television show scripts for
content before an online magazine reported the issue, and McCaffrey
revised his policies, a California newspaper reported recently.

TV shows are now only reviewed for credit after being broadcast,
according to McCaffrey's written testimony.

The credit program is based on 1997 legislation that requires any
media outlet running a paid anti-drug ad to donate equal time or space
for additional ads.

Instead of running public service announcements -- which amount to
free advertising -- McCaffrey's office allowed television shows to
incorporate the anti-drug themes in their programs.

So far, 109 television episodes were awarded credit for promoting the
anti-drug campaign.

Now, as outlined in the 1997 legislation, McCaffrey wants to expand
the media campaign to send anti-drug messages through motion pictures.

Praising movies that promote certain behavior is not inherently wrong,
said a professor at the Chicago-Kent School of Law

"The First Amendment doesn't say government can't speak," said Howard
Eglit, who teaches constitutional law.

But "where taxpayer dollars are being spent to subsidize some speech
but not other speech, therein lies a real problem," he said.

Eglit suggests a disclaimer at the beginning of any movie that carries
a government-approved message.

"If McCaffrey's office is going to give it's seal of approval, we've
got to understand that's one viewpoint and it should be clear at the
beginning of the movie it's getting a seal of approval," he said.

Government shouldn't supplant the role of the individual or parent
when deciding what the public is exposed to, others say.

"That's why you have dial changers and remote controls," said Charles
Coleman, film program director at Facets Multimedia, a nonprofit
exhibition venue in Chicago known for its eclectic selection of movies.

"There's always been some great fear quotient of the deleterious
consequences of artistic expression," Coleman said, referring to the
early 1920s when the film industry formed its own censorship board
after a series of scandals created an anti-Hollywood mood.

By the 1930s, censorship became mandatory and films were being
regulated for their portrayals of sex, violence, drug use and
vulgarity, said Marty Rubin, associate director of programming at the
Gene Siskel Film Center at the School of the Art Institute in Chicago.

It is the precursor to today's movie ratings, Rubin
said.

McCaffrey's plans are not the first in U.S. history,
either.

The national designated driver campaign launched in 1988 is a
successful example of an integrated media blitz that affected a public
health issue, according to McCaffrey's statement.

"The campaign broke new ground when television writers agreed to
insert drunk driving prevention messages in scripts of top-rated
shows," McCaffrey's statement reads.

By 1992, annual alcohol-related fatalities declined by 24
percent.

And a 1999 survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
gives McCaffrey even more fuel.

The survey, according to McCaffrey, "reveals that almost half (48
percent) of the people who report they watch soap operas at least
twice a week learned something about diseases and how to prevent them
from the daytime drama story lines. More than one-third (34 percent)
took some action as a result."

Perhaps most important is what audiences think.

Movies already show people dying from drugs, said 15-year-old Matt
DeYoung of South Holland, who was sitting outside the River Oaks
theater with a friend. Movies are entertainment but also send a
message, he said.

"But if it overwhelms the movie, then it's not a good idea," DeYoung
said.
- ---
MAP posted-by: greg