Senators Concerned Over Anti-Drug Ad Deal 

Senators Concerned Over Anti-Drug Ad Deal 
Posted by FoM on February 03, 2000 at 15:20:18 PT
By Janelle Carter, The Associated Press
Source: Alabama Live
Lawmakers expressed concern Thursday about a government deal to insert anti-drug messages into prime-time television programs, while a White House official denied the arrangement was an attempt to restrict free speech. Since the deal was disclosed last month, there have been "unfair allegations of attacks on the First Amendment, Big Brother. Nothing could be further from the truth," said Alan Levitt, director of the anti-drug media campaign for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. 
"We have not done this in secret. We are doing it because it is the way you change behavior," Levitt told the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Treasury and general government. Lawmakers said the deal raised questions despite its good intentions. "We have no problem with all of the ads you mentioned," said the subcommittee chairman, Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Colo. "The question is how we go about doing it." Added Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., "I think it does raise real serious questions about the government's role." In the House, Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., chairman of the Commerce subcommittee on telecommunications, trade and consumer protection, has said he wants to hold hearings on the matter. Under the deal, the government gave financial credits to TV networks that included anti-drug messages in their shows. In some cases, the White House drug policy office even reviewed the scripts before the programs aired. Barry McCaffrey, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, has put new rules into practice since January and said the government will not review program episodes in advance. The office also plans to keep separate its process for granting financial credits from its role in advising networks and producers on how to portray situations involving drugs. The arrangement stemmed from Congress' 1997 approval to spend $1 billion over five years on anti-drug ads. Newspapers, magazines and other media outlets were asked to match each commercial spot bought by the government with a free one. Since the program started, however, the government has agreed to give up some of its ad time on television -- as long as the networks demonstrate that some programs convey anti-drug messages. To date, Levitt said, the government has received television programming messages worth $21.8 million on 130 different types of shows. Washington (AP)Published: February 3, 2000Please send any questions orcomments to feedback al.comCopyright 2000 Associated Press.Related Articles:Editorial: Must See Television, Propaganda - 1/28/2000 Conspiracy for Good is Bad - 1/28/2000 Just Say No - 1/27/2000 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #5 posted by BCG on February 04, 2000 at 08:20:57 PT:
My doctoral dissertation
will most assuredly include a description of the process for making cocaine from coca (I am a graduate student who researches cocaine neuropharmacology). I really like the idea of having my dissertation burned in the town square. Like Galileo or Copernicus. This is how it begins, thought and information control driving scientists out of the country. How would WWII have been different is Einstein and Oppenheimer not decided Germany was getting too hot for them? 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by Rainbow on February 04, 2000 at 07:44:47 PT
I will order another copy 
I will order a copy of Dr. Grinspoon's book from Amazon and then demand that they be arrested?I will hopefully muster the courage to take the book to the local police and demand to be arrested too.I think it is time for Civil Disobediance. Maybe it is time for a Tea party as well.Rainbow
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by Congressman Suet on February 04, 2000 at 00:27:56 PT
And one more thing..
 If,by some terrible circumstance the Anti-Meth Anti Free Speech bill IS passed, I will be the first to march down to the local precinct with my copy of "Confessions Of An English Opium Eater" and demand to be arrested.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by CongressmanSuet on February 03, 2000 at 23:51:21 PT
Make the people think they are doing something...
   I watched the hearing...Thank you FOM for pointing out the time of the broadcast. While Sen. Campbell and Sen. Dorgan feinged this sort of great displeasure with the methods of the ONDCP, they nonetheless, spent considerable time kissing up to Levitt, telling him what a noble cause he was involved in, just take it easy with the methods you use.There were several references to Czar Pinnochio in the course of the hearing. From what I gathered, the idea that the media hors who agreed to this were well within their rights made me nauseus. No, there was no coercion, when millions of bucks were on the they really think we, the people are complete idiots? Well, yes. And who was that idiot sitting behind Levitt that constantly nodded in agreement with every word he said? You know, I watch crap like this and it really worries me in regards to the chances of the Anti-Meth Free Speech Bill being actually passed.Oh and Peg Conlin kissing Levitts ass was a nice touch. Funny, all the agreement seemed to end when Daniel Forbes took the "stand", no more blind head nodding....
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on February 03, 2000 at 16:06:12 PT
And these are the same clot brains
who voted unanimously for the First Ammemndment-destroying Anti-Meth Bill. They see nothing wrong in propaganda. They see nothing wrong in lying to people. Some people say the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. The Senate and the House are living proof they are wrong.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment

Name: Optional Password: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: