Drugs Kill... and cripple... and lead to HIV...and more

Anti-drug messages in the media are intended to scare rather than foster educated debate
Image courtesy of www.jessicacosta.com

The European Union is joining America in its anti-drug campaigning and preparing to launch its first drug awareness initiative. America's war on drugs, however, is hardly an ideal model. A new study shows that the billion dollar tax-payer-funded investment with heavy print and broadcast focus “failed to convince young children and teenagers to stay away from marijuana and actually might have encouraged some to try smoking pot.” The advertising led pre-teens to consider drugs as a ‘normal’ part of life. These messages also lead to a ‘forbidden fruit’ effect. Despite these charges, the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign was quick to point out "drug use among teens has dropped steadily in nearly every category since 2001."

There is a difference between an informative campaign and blatant fear mongering. Associating drug use with STDs and graphic images (see freaky anti-drug commercial) not only confuses the message but closes the door to healthy debate. The Office of National Drug Control Policy created a series of video news releases – advertising disguised as prepackaged news stories, failing to explicitly identify themselves as the producers. This is nothing short of ‘covert propaganda’. These tactics are successful when used by car and lingerie advertisers. But they do not encourage a conversation with the viewer as a successful anti-drug campaign should.

The media has been happy to milk the anti-drug campaign for advertising dollars for the last ten years. As of 1998, the Magazine Publishers of America have agreed not only to run advertising but to support it with convincing editorials, blatantly admitting to excluding contradictory opinions. I was under the impression that journalists aimed to provide unbiased coverage of both sides of an issue, no matter how noble a cause may be.

The New Face of Newspapers

Looking into the future of newspapers

Photo by Jana Werner, ©2005 Endeavors magazine

An article in the August/ September issue of The American Journalism Review predicts the death of newspapers sooner than we think. The Internet has not only tapped advertising and classified revenues it has provided a platform for obtaining news with no startup costs, no distribution costs and no barriers to entry. The Internet allows for specialization, a luxury media outlets with mass audiences cannot afford. And with specialized content comes specialized advertising. What could be more appealing to an advertiser than the ability to target the relevant market without wasting coverage? In order for newspapers to compete, they need to market a point of differentiation from the blogosphere. Their unique selling point, which advertisers cannot deny, is their image as a trusted source for public affairs. According to the article, in order to survive, newspapers of the future will have to contextualize the news, with a stronger focus on news analysis and investigative reporting - “content that gives them their natural community influence”. The mass audience has already migrated to the Internet. Newspapers can now “jettison the frivolous items in the content buffet” and retain their image as opinion leaders. They now need to aim at the “the educated, opinion-leading, news-junkie core of the audience” – Lippmann’s ‘cognitive elite’ if you will. If this prediction holds true we can hope for more high-brow content in our daily papers.