January 14, 2000
PRESS BRIEFING BY JOE LOCKHART
12:15 P.M. EST
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release January 14, 2000
PRESS BRIEFING BY
JOE LOCKHART
The Briefing Room
12:15 P.M. EST
............
Q Joe, why is it not payola when the government provides
television networks millions in remuneration for reviewing the scripts of
some of their programs for antidrug messages, and then it's not announced
at any point during the program that the government is not identified as an
advertiser which, in effect, it could be considered --
MR. LOCKHART: I'm not sure I even know what the definition of
payola is or how it applies here, but let me just tell you what I know
about the program. First off, this program that General McCaffrey and the
Office of National Drug Policy engaged in is something that's been public.
He discussed this at a congressional hearing last year.
Secondly, you all know that there was legislation passed that
provides for a government paid-for antidrug messages on the television
networks, on radio networks, in newspapers, at a preferred rate. Thirdly,
there was an arrangement reached between the people who do the drug policy
ads on the networks to work through alternative ways to get the message
out. This is something that we believe is worthwhile to try to find
innovative ways to get the message particularly to young people about the
dangers of drugs.
This is something, obviously -- the network people wanted to do
it because they participated in this and it was done in a way that did
nothing to impinge on the creative process that provides us with the
primetime shows that I think have been mentioned in relation to this.
Q But, Joe, if I could follow that, there was no
acknowledgement of the government's involvement, the government's review of
scripts in any of the television show.
MR. LOCKHART: Well, Wendell, if this is a serious issue I'd say
you put it to your bosses and everybody else's bosses here understand that.
Q You don't think it's deceptive?
MR. LOCKHART: I don't. I don't think -- I think there is a real
benefit to getting the message out. There was no sense here of the
government playing a role of what you can say and what you can't say. It
was a sense of partnership between the government that wants to get an
antidrug message out and I think some businesses that think it's in their
interest to get an antidrug message out. And as far as sort of theological
questions for the entertainment industry, I suggest you put the questions
to the entertainment industry.
Q Joe, is the White House interested in a similar approach on
other matters that the President has put before Hollywood executives, like
gun violence or other inappropriate --
MR. LOCKHART: Well, we're interested in working, and we have
worked very closely with entertainment officials. This is a particular
situation because we do have this pot of appropriated money that goes to
antidrug advertisement that Congress and the President have decided is a
worthwhile use of taxpayers money.
This particular program I think is the result of looking for
other ways to get the message out that allows networks in a robust
advertising environment to sell to other people where they can make more
money.
Q Is there any studies that can be cited --
Q If I could follow, is that yes, is that no, or --
MR. LOCKHART: I think I said that we work with people on a wide
variety of issues, but on this particular instance, I don't know of any
other program where we're doing
issues, but on this particular instance, I don't know of any other program
where we're doing this kind of thing as far as buying advertisements with
the networks and working closely with them on any other issue.
Q Is that --
MR. LOCKHART: I'm trying to be clear here. We work with
industries on, whether it be teenage violence, we work -- we do things like
PSAs. We work with them to encourage them to work with us in a
partnership. There's no other issue that I know of where we have a
relationship like we have when we're actually buying advertising time like
we do on drug policy.
Q Would you want to do that in the future?
Q When you buy it, it's labeled.
MR. LOCKHART: I don't know. I mean, I think we want to -- there
are important ways and innovative ways to get messages out, but I don't
know that that's even been considered.
Q Joe, even though you may be doing the Lord's work in this
and everybody wants to reduce drug use by young people, can you see the
precedent that's being set here whereby the government reviews scripts and
there is --
MR. LOCKHART: John --
Q Let me finish -- and there is a financial incentive for the
networks to come up with scripts that the government approves, even though
it may be for a good cause, and therefore, should it, at the very least --
the church-state thing here, as you can see -- at the very least, should
there be some kind of disclaimer at the end of these programs saying
something like "this has been approved by the" --
MR. LOCKHART: Based on, what I think you're asking in the
question, it would probably be just as wrong for us to dictate what kind of
disclaimer is going to be on. These are all legitimate questions. I
understand the basis of them, but I think you're asking in the wrong place.
I think you should go to -- we believe that this is a proper arrangement;
otherwise we wouldn't have gone forward with it. And I think the networks
who are involved also believe that. But I don't think I can state my views
more clearly here, and I think most of these questions should be asked
someplace else.
Q Let me see if I can ask a question that you can answer here.
From your side of the bargain, it's obvious what the networks get out of
it, from your side of the bargain, are the messages contained within the
programs as effective as they are in a PSA? Do you have anything that
backs that up?
MR. LOCKHART: Well, we've got teenage drug use down, I think 13
percent.
Q Do you have any studies that you can cite --
MR. LOCKHART: I think certainly the basics of understanding
communications will tell you that the more ways you can get a message
across, the more effective it's going to be. And we have overall
information that is positive on teenage drug use. We've certainly got a
lot more work to do, but I don't have a study here that tells me that this
works any better than anything else.
................
Q Joe, can I try once more on this drug control policy
program? Are you suggesting that, in effect, compensating the networks for
drug messages contained in entertainment programming, not acknowledged at
any point, whether proper or not, is a matter for the networks to defend
and that the government has no responsibility in this matter?
MR. LOCKHART: No, I think you've got to look at this, if you
want to look at it fairly, in the overall context, rather than in a
sentence of compensating for -- you know well what the system is, where
there is a fixed amount of money that the government has appropriated for
these advertisements and that are budgeted, and we go ahead and put these
ads on, I think which have proved effective. But there are other ways in
order to get that message out, and this is an innovative idea to reach the
same message we're trying to get out, reach the same people in a slightly
different way. And it is ultimately about the results that we achieve.
And, again, if there are those in the entertainment community or
the network community that have qualms with this arrangement, then this is
something that we're certainly open to discussing, but it's ultimately an
arrangement that we're comfortable with, and that up until this morning's
newspapers, the networks were comfortable with.
Q Would you be comfortable with the networks saying, this
message was inspired by the Drug Office of the White House?
MR. LOCKHART: If the networks want to --
Q It should be labeled, really. Otherwise --
MR. LOCKHART: Let's try to keep this about questions and answers
and not opinions. If that's an idea the networks want to bring to us, our
door is open and we'll have a discussion about it.
Q Well, we wonder why. You know, this is real interference
with scripts.
MR. LOCKHART: Well, no, I don't think it is. But I think if you
want to satisfy the concerns, you should talk to the people who write the
scripts, you should talk to the people who put the shows on the air who --
Q We're talking to the White House, which --
MR. LOCKHART: And I'm giving you the best answers I can here.
Q Joe, just to make sure I understood your previous answer
about how this applies to other programs, so in terms of guns or youth
violence or whatever, you don't have anything similar to this where you're
reviewing scripts and then some kind of remuneration?
MR. LOCKHART: Take a step back here and try to -- I'll go
through it again. We have a particular program out of the Drug Policy
Office here which Congress appropriated money for, which provides for
antidrug advertisements with the networks. Now, there is an arrangement
there because it's done at a rate that is not at the rate that Pepsi Cola
advertises at.
Within this arrangement, they have worked out a way where in some
cases rather than going and doing the ads, they get credits for antidrug
messages that get through in the programs. And again, I think this is an
issue that we're comfortable with. It serves the purpose of getting the
message out in a number of different ways the networks, as participants and
as part of this program, are comfortable with and I assume the
entertainment companies that they work with are comfortable with. But if
there are those who are uncomfortable, they should talk about it. We can
have a debate, and we'll see where it goes.
Q Why is it not propaganda, Joe?
MR. LOCKHART: Pardon?
Q Why is it not propaganda?
MR. LOCKHART: I'm not standing here saying that it's not. It's
getting a message across that I think the public -- that the government,
Congress, the President agrees is important to get out to the public about
the dangers of drugs. Now, you've got to go and define your words when you
say that, so define the word for me.
Q The word is, if not surreptitiously, at least pushing
forward an idea without acknowledging that that is your goal, to set forth
--
MR. LOCKHART: We have acknowledged our goal. We have
acknowledged that our goal, as we've sat with industry executives on a
number of subjects, and drugs is certainly one of them where we've said we
want the industry to stop glamorizing drug use. We want the industry to
send a positive message on the dangers --
Q Why not leave it up to the industry to decide how they're
going to do it?
MR. LOCKHART: We do leave it up to industry, and this is one
program here. Listen, let's go on to the next thing because we're not
getting anywhere here.
................
Thank you.
END 12:53 P.M. EST
#154-01/14