HaCKeRz KrOnIcKLeZ 3/HaCKeRz_KrOnIcKLeZ.iso/drugs/wod.and.media

Internet Message Format | 1996-05-06 | 28KB

From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: "War on Drugs and Media" Paper (LONG)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Dec 91 00:52:13 GMT

Representation of the "War on Drugs" in "Time" and "Newsweek"

By David Hirmes ([e-mail])

December, 1991


   The Big Picture?: A Case for Perplexity

      My method of research was fairly simple.  I searched for  articles in
Time and Newsweek that in some way dealt with the  "War on Drugs"
between 1986 and 1989.  I came up with several  cover stories, and many
smaller ones.  As for my purpose:  I was  looking for how these news
magazines handled a problem that has  been a part of society for thousands
of years, and yet just  recently has been declared a "war".  Even in terms of
hightened  awareness about drugs, there were several times in history, not
just the 60's and 70's, in which drugs became of "national  importance".  So
why the hype?  How had it changed and how does  it change through the
years analysed? I decided that the best way  to discover this would be to
search for the "frames" the media  used to portray the "war on drugs".
The idea of frames was first  introduced to me in Todd Gitlin's book "The
Whole World Is  Watching".  Gitlin's example was the turbulent times of
the 60's,  and in particular, the New Left.  He found that the media used
various ways of framing the New Left which gave a distorted view  of
what the movement was all about.  In this paper I hope to  expose some
frames used in the "war on drugs".

     The overall impression I got through reading a plethora of  articles from
Time and Newsweek from August of 1986 to November  of 1989 was that
the news media were just as perplexed as the  government and the general
populous about drug abuse.  The  questions asked in '86 were still being
asked in '89, with  perhaps a heightened sense of urgency.  The question of
why  people do drugs in the first place, why and how it leads to  addiction,
how serious is the problem, is it getting worse, what  can we do about it as
citizens, what can the government do about  it, how has it gotten this far,
who is to blame... The questions  remain in a steady stream, yet no one
seems to have realistic  answers.  Those who do make promises or
predictions usually end  up looking foolish a month or a year later.
President Bush has  learned his lessons, and has made little promises on
how  successful the "war on drugs" will be in the near future.   Recently,
"Drug Czar" William Bennett resigned from his post.   One of the prices
payed for turning a problem into a "war" is  that there is always the chance
one might lose.

                    Framing the Problem - 1986

                            Discovery

     The government's "war on drugs", and therefore, coverage of  the
nation-wide drug epidemic, began in full force when large  scale drug abuse
expanded from the inner-city to middle-class  Americans and the
workplace.  Coverage also expanded with  increased violence in urban,
and later rural areas.  There is an  interesting admission to this subtle (and
not so subtle) classism  in both 1986 cover stories from Time and
Newsweek.  In Newsweeks'  "Saying No" article (8/11/86) it is stated that:
"In part, the  change in the public mood has a racist tinge:  drugs simply
moved  from the black and Hispanic underclass to the middle-class
mainstream and are being felt as a problem there."1  While the  admission
of racism within mainstream America was surprising, it  was equally as
interesting that Newsweek blamed Americans  for  their lack of caring
about the plight of the inner-city, and not  the lack of news coverage itself.  I
have found, although I did  very little research before 1986, that the
problems of drug abuse  in the inner-city were covered only when the
problem had reached  many more levels of American society.  This is
exemplified by  what seemed to be an extremely offensive comment in the
Time  article "The Enemy Within":
As drugs have moved out of the ghetto and into the workplace, as bus
drivers and lawyers and assembly-line workers get hooked, innocent
consumers are put as risk.  The cost of employers from drug abuse-- from
lost productivity, absenteeism and higher accident rates-- is estimated at
about $33 billion by the government.2

     Are they assuming that there are no bus drivers, lawyers,  and
assembly-line workers in the ghetto?  Is the loss of work-  place
productivity more of a concern than the decay of the inner-  city?
Obviously, Time knows its audience.

                        A History Lesson

       After realizing that there is indeed a drug problem in  America, the two
news magazines diverged on two different paths.   While Newsweek
chose to deal with the current administrations  changing policy, Time
decided to give some historical context to  the drug problem.  Since the
article had already framed itself as  as dealing with the "war on drugs", the
history that was  presented held all drugs at an equally evil level.  Pot,
heroin,  cocaine, and PCP were all equally responsible for the current  drug
crisis.  Of course, no mention of legalization efforts, were  mentioned, two
notable deletions seemed to be the World War II  program of "Hemp for
Victory" as well as the complete failure of  prohibition.  While pot is
regularly lumped with much more  dangerous drugs such as cocaine,
heroin, and PCP, or in the  context of a "gateway" drug, cigarettes and
alcohol are rarely  mentioned.  By leaving out cigarettes and alcohol, which
account  for over 100 times more deaths a year than all illegal drugs
combined, an important facet of this issue is missing.3  The  violent aspects
of drugs like crack and PCP are hyped in many  articles, but rarely are the
moods of those on alcohol.
     There were some positive aspects of "The Enemy Within"  article.  For
one, a framing in which the "enemy" is ourselves,  rather than some evil
Latin American drug empire is a positive  shift the idea that DEA officials
can cure the drug problem by  cutting off the Southern supply.  And the
article did spend  almost half of a small paragraph explaining the
disproportionate  cases of death and health care costs from tobacco and
alcohol  opposed to other illegal drugs.  But it must be stressed that
devoting even a half a paragraph on this subject was the  exception to the
rule.
                         Reagan's Analysis
     Probably due to my reading Mark Hertsgaard's "On Bended  Knee", a
book about the relationship between the Reagan  administration and the
press, the coverage of Reagan seemed  especially dubious.  In the
Newsweek cover story "Saying No", it  is stated point blank that Reagan
began taking the drug crisis  seriously only when public opinion polls
deemed it necessary.   While Nancy's Just Say No campaign had been in
full swing for a  few years, the President had not considered it a top priority
until '86.  The article states that Reagan's philosophy had  always been one
of education and treatment, where volunteers and  corporate America
should take the responsibility to deal with the  problem.  Yet at the same
time, a full $1.8 billion of the $2  billion given for "war on drugs" in 1985 was
for enforcement,  leaving the remaining $200 million to be divided between
education and treatment programs.4  In fact, from 1982 to 1986,  the
allotment for treatment and education actually decreased over  $80
million.5
     The Newsweek article also featured a short interview with  the
President.  When asked "You've described America as 'upbeat,  optimistic'
--why are drugs such a problem now?" Reagan replied: .ls1
For one thing... the music world.. has... made it sound as if it's right there and
the thing to do, and rock-and-roll concerts and so forth.  Musicians that
young people like... make no secret of the fact that they are users, [And] I
must say this, that the theatre--well, motion-picture industry--has started
down a road they'd been on before once, with alcohol abuse...6
(note: ... and [] are Newsweeks, not mine.)

     When asked  directly why drugs were a problem in America,  our
Presidents answer was rock and roll and the movies.  This is  the president
who had been cutting social programs for the last  five years, who had been
virtually ignoring the problems of the  inner-city, and this was his thoughtful
analysis.  But this had  been part of Reagan's fairy-tale version of America
from the  start.  By framing the issue in this way, Reagan disqualified his
domestic policy from any part in the drug crisis, and at the same  time
trivialized the issue as non-political.
     As a side note, just as Hertsgaard points out over and over  in "On
Bended Knee", the press let the President frame the  issues.  Following his
short interview, Newsweek dedicated a full  article entitled "Going After
Hollywood" which spent a good  amount of time nit-picking at recent
movies in which drug use was  glorified.7  While the initial Newsweek
cover story was entitled  "Saying No!", no one from the inner-city was
asked about the  effectiveness of this campaign, nor were they asked about
any of  the new policy changes.  In the place where the drug crisis
supposedly originated, no voice was given at all.

                    Framing the Solution - 1986
                          The Big Three

     Options to combat drug abuse are limited to the Big Three:
enforcement, treatment, and education.  Throughout the four years
analyzed, the "debate" always dealt with which of the three is  more
important to focus on financially.  Legalization is barely  mentioned at any
level, except to completely lambaste the idea.   On the other end,
enforcement debates range from cracking down on  casual users, to full
military intervention at home and abroad.8

                 "Battle Strategies"/Reagans on TV
    Even as early as September of 1986, the news magazines had a  cynical
    view of the "war on
drugs".  The First Couple went on  national television urging Americans to
stop the using drugs at  the same time when law enforcement officials
were telling the  press there was no way to stop the supply of drugs from
entering  the U.S.9  A Time article entitled "Battle Strategies" explained
the various methods of "combat" (remember, this is a "war"): The  border
patrols, heightened arrests,  drug testing (which would  soon become a
major issue), treatment, and education.10  Another  article in Newsweek
(9/22/86) explained how the Reagans were  getting involved through
Nancy's Just Say No campaign and  Ronald's new interest in the issue
(now that he realized voters  felt it an important issue).11  The tone of both
articles seemed  to take the issue as more of a political one that a social or
economic problem, a trend that would continue through my  research.  In a
September, 1986 article, Time extolled:  "The  abuse of illegal drugs has
certainly become the Issue of the  Year, except that the main issue
involved seems to be how far  politicians scramble to outdo one another in
leading the  crusade."12  One must ask: Whose fault is that-- the politicians,
the news media, or both?
     In framing the solution, the news magazines seem to forget  that the
problem itself has not truly been identified.  The so-  called solutions are
attacking the symptoms, not the disease.   This simple fact is not recognized
by the news magazines.  By  telling kindergardeners in the inner-city not to
do drugs is one  thing, but when these same children grow old enough to
see the  best opportunity for wealth and power is that of the drug dealer,
ideals could change quite easily.13

                  Re-Framing the Problem - 1988
                 Night of the Living Crack Heads

     The National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) conducts a  survey every
two to three years called the National Household  Survey on Drug Use,
which questions about 8,000 people.14  Much  of the government's policy
relies on this document for data.  In  1988, after decades of almost steady
increase, the survey showed  a decline in most drug use in the United
States.  The marked  exception was cocaine (and its smokable derivative
crack) which  went down for casual use, but rose steadily for those who
used  the drug more than once a week.15  By this time, the "war on  drugs"
had been in full swing for several years, and while the  NIDA statistics
showed one side of the story, the "rising tide of  violence" (a favorite media
catch phrase), "crack babies", rise  of crack use by upper and middle-class
whites, and what appeared  to be the growth of gangs, gang violence, and
drugs in small  towns across America, showed quite another.  A common
frame to  begin articles in which policy changes or announcements were
being made by Bush or William Bennett, were specific incidents of
violence or irony resulting from the drug crisis.16   Interestingly enough,
while this gave a cynical and somewhat  confrontational frame for the
article, it also seemed to lead  into something of an aggressive opinion
regarding the  implementation of enforcement policy:  In response to more
violence, reporters' first reactions seemed to be "Where are our  guns?"
     The vast majority of articles found from 1988 on that did  not report
specifically on an event or government announcement,  dealt with various
aspects of crack.  Two out of the three cover  stories dealing with drugs
from 1988 to 1990 had to do with  crack:  Time had "Kids Who Sell Crack"
(5/9/88) and Newsweek  simply had "Crack" (11/28/88).  The third was
entitled "Addictive  Personalities" and featured Kittie Dukakus on the
cover  (Newsweek, 2/20/89).  Both "crack" cover stories had various
problems and inaccuracies, although in general Time seemed to  have a
slightly better grasp on the "big picture" (i.e. some  semblance of analysis)
than Newsweek, in which sensationalism  seemed a much higher priority.
I'd like to give a somewhat  detailed account of these articles because to a
large degree,  they focus on most of the (domestic) frames used in media to
represent the "war on drugs".
     The Time story begins with the tale of a 13 year old dealer  named Frog.
In describing why young blacks from the ghetto might  begin to deal drugs,
Time explains: "Like most young American  people, they are material girls
and boys.  They crave the  glamorous clothes, cars, and jewelry they see
advertised on TV."   I suppose because most young Americans do not read
their  magazines, this allows Time to print ads of a similar type (not  to
mention another highly addictive drug, nicotine, which kids  can't see on
TV).  Showing that not only kids from the ghetto can  get hooked, Time
next focuses on Eric, an upper-middle class  white honor student who
became addicted to crack.  The next  section of the article discusses the
"live for today" attitude of  many teenagers involved in drug dealing, as well
as prison over-  crowding.  When a huge raid in L.A. is conducted and "Half
(of  those arrested) had to be released for lack of evidence" A mere
sentence is dedicated to this frightening trend of mass arrest,  with only the
"civil libertarians" upset over the seeming loss of  civil rights.17  The article
redeems itself to some degree,  towards the end, when it goes into a
somewhat detailed account of  the current job and educational situation for
lower-class people  in America.  This is the only article I found where more
than  half a sentence is used to blame cuts in job training and  education
programs by the Federal government as a possible  problem somehow
related to drugs.18  It is also worthwhile  mentioning that this article was
written on Reagan's way out,  over seven years since Reaganomics began.
     Newsweek, which tried to give a nation-wide view of the drug  war by
going to a crack house, a prison, a rehab center, and a  court, failed to find
any connections or insights into the drug  problem except to equate all drug
addicts as on the same low-life  level.  It's hard to expect much from an
article that in the  third paragraph states: .ls1

These are the two Americas.  No other line you can draw is as trenchant
as this.  On one side, people of normal human appetites, for food and sex
and creature comforts; on the other, those who crave only the roar and
crackle of their own neurons, whipped into a frenzy of synthetic euphoria.
The Crack Nation.  It is in our midst, but not a part of us; our laws barely
touch it on its progress through our jails and hospitals, on its way to our
morgues.19
      If images virtually out of "Night of the Living Dead" are  used as the
initial frame towards the drug addict, why would  anyone not feel that these
"Others" should be dealt with by any  means necessary.  Since this article
was purported to be a "day  in the life piece", practically no historical
background on the  crisis, and no analysis of a larger picture were given,
leaving a  very narrow view of the true problem.
     In Herbert Gans' book "Deciding What's News", he describes  what he
calls "enduring values", values that the press consider  an intragle, positive,
and necessary part of American society.   It is when these values are
threatened, that the news responds.   Some of Gans' "enduring values"
include: "ethnocentrism,  altruistic democracy, responsible capitalism,
moderatism, [and]  social order"(p.42)  All of these values are threatened
by drugs.   Newsweek's portrayal of this bipolar society, the "Crack
Nation",  is proof of how the threatening of these values can turn to
dangerous assumptions, exaggerations, and misrepresentations  within the
"objective" news media.

                 Re-Framing the Solution - 1988
                            Big Guns
     The journalists seemed as war-weary as the DEA agents they  were
reporting about.  So when Time purports in March of 1988  that
"Americans lose patience with Panama", they are possibly  referring more
to the administration and news journalists, than  the American people.20
With hind-sight, we can see that Noreiga  was actually a minor player in
Latin American drug smuggling  operations.  Soon after the U.S. invation,
the New York Times  reported that the flow of drugs in and out of Panama
actually had  increased.
     Later in 1989, when Newsweek reports on William Bennett's  progress
as Drug Czar (one of the oddest terms associated with  the "war on
drugs"), the reporter intones: "...he is likewise  correct that tougher law
enforcement is the necessary first  response."21
     To a large degree, it seems that reporting on the drug war  by 1988-9
turned from cynical, somewhat hopeless, and aloof, to  cynical, angry, and
battle-worn.  Reporters began to tire of  the governments rhetoric, and as
drugs began to draw closer to  their own homes, they became more
anxious for a solution.  So  perhaps because of the fact that law-makers are
giving no other  solutions, when Bennett and Bush explain the solution
begins with  more cops, more guns, more prisons, and harsher treatment of
casual users (as well as treatment and education, of course), the  press are
not so alarmed.  When the Presidential appointee  Bennett explains that
legalization would be a "national disaster"  as would attacking the "social
front", one find the options even  more limiting.22 .pa

         Breaking the Frames: Distortions and Omissions
     In beginning to understand the framing of the "war on drugs"  within the
news media, one must first look at the statistics (the  NIDA survays) and
how they are used to shape governmental policy  and public opinion.  First,
it must be noted that these are  household surveys, which would exclude
the homeless and those  with no permanent homes.  Second, the rising
trend to punish the  casual user would automatically create an atmosphere
of distrust  and suspicion.  Third, the surveys do not consider legal drugs
such as alcohol and cigarettes, which account for many more  deaths a
year than all other illegal drugs combined.  I am  unaware if the police
reports, which have been used to show that  large amounts of people
arrested test positive for drugs, include  alcohol.  While these reasons do
not completely disqualify the  results of the surveys, they do question their
accuracy.23
     The next problem found through the articles analyzed were  the
selection of sources for information and anaylsis, in a word:  who was given
a voice in the news.  By this I mean who was  interviewed, quoted, and
used as the source of information for  the articles.  For the most part,
ordinary citizens were  interviewed only to determine the level of the
crisis-- how bad a  neighborhood had gotten, how many people they knew
were involved  with illegal drugs, etc.  Never was a man or woman from
the  inner-city, or even one from a suburban area for that matter,  asked
what they thought the causes of the drug crisis were, or  why it was so bad
in certain areas.  For the most part, the Big  Picture was left to the
government and to a lesser extent, the  news media itself.
     Where were the voices of teachers, medical professionals,  social
workers, minority group leaders, civil rights activists,  and the most taboo of
all, legalization activists?  The medical  professionals and social workers
were asked how their various  programs were coping, and sometimes the
successful ones were  examined in detail, but that was the extent of their
voice.   Minority leaders, even media favorites like Jesse Jackson, were
ignored, and their cries for reinstating social programs lost in  the Reagan
years were never heard.  Civil rights activists were  only refereed to in the
third person as in "civil libertarians  were worried of this law" or "those
concerned with civil rights  had reservations about the legality".  The one
notably exception  to this was the continuing controversy over drug testing.
But it  is important to realize that this controversy deals with almost  all
Americas.  Anyone with a job (no longer simply air-traffic  controllers and
government employees with "security" positions)  could be effected by
these measures.  And yet the truly dangerous  actions, ones that most
Americans take for granted, are all but  ignored.  From mass arrests of
suspected drug dealers and not  using warrants to search homes and cars,
to suggestions of using  the military to destroy coca fields in other countries-
- these  issues were barely discussed.
     The entertainment element within the news media played an  important
role in the "war on drugs" as well.  Just as with Magic  Johnson now, were
it not for the death of Len Bias and the  scandal of Daryll Strawberry, who
knows how long it would have  taken the media to catch on that there was
a drug problem in  America.  When looking up source articles for this
paper, the  list of "Drugs and Sports" was longer than that of "Drug Abuse"
or "Crack" for several of the years between 1986 and 1990.   Possibly the
media found in sports-drug related scandal,an  entertainment side of the
drug war that had more mass appeal than  an inner-city murder or siezure
of some odd tonnage of cocaine  from Latin America.
     Finally, while it is not a panacea, nor a complete answer to  the reasons
behind America's drug crisis, I had thought that  questioning the social and
economic policies of Reaganomics would  have brought to light some of the
reasons why drug dealing, let  alone drug abuse would become more
appealing to those who  suffered from the cuts in Federally funded social
programs in  housing, medical care, and education.  But those comparisons
were  never made.  Except for a small section in the Time cover story  of
1988 mentioned earlier in the paper, simply the idea that  economic factors
were somehow involved in drug abuse were  completely ignored.  A
portion of the reason for this might have  to do with Reagan's insistence
that it is the drug user and  potential drug user that must be focused on.  It is
"Just Say No"  and law enforcement-- these are our options.  Not much
has  changed.




10"Battle Strategies" Time (Sep 15 86)

11"Rolling Out the Big Guns" Time (Sep 22 86)

12"The Enemy Within" Time [cover story] (Sep 15 86)

13see "Addictive Personalities" Newsweek [cover story] (Feb 20 89) for
the sillyness of trying to find a definition.

14see "Drug Abuse and Drug Abuse Research", U.S. Dept. of Health and
Human Services, Rockville, Maryland, 1991, also see the first chapter of
"Communications Campaigns About Drugs", Pamela J. Shoemaker, ed.,
Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Hillsdale, NJ, 1989.

15 see "Drug Abuse and Drug Abuse Research", U.S. Dept. of Health and
Human Services, Rockville, Maryland, 1991, and "National Drug Control
Strategy", U.S. Government document, 1990.

16"Tears of Rage" Time (Mar 14 88) and "Bennett's Drug War"
Newsweek (Aug 21 89)

17"Crack" Newsweek [cover story] (Nov 28 88)

18"Kids Who Sell Crack" Time [cover story] (May 9 88)

19"Crack" Newsweek [cover story] (Nov 28 88)

20"Tears of Rage" Time (Mar 14 88)


21"Bennett's Drug War" Newsweek (Aug 21 89)

22Ibid.

23see the chapter "Cocaine-Related Deaths: Who are the Victims?  What
is the cause?" Linda S. Wong, M.A., and Bruce K. Alexander, Ph.D., in the
book "Drug Policy 1989-1990: A Reformer's Catalogue" Arnold Tresbach,
ed., The Drug Policy Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1989.



                      Article Bibliography
                    (in chronological order)

"Saying No!" Newsweek [cover story] (Aug 11 86)

"Going After Hollywood" Newsweek (Aug 11 86)

"The Enemy Within" Time [cover story] (Sep 15 86)

"Battle Strategies" Time (Sep 15 86)

"Rolling Out the Big Guns" Time (Sep 22 86)

"Urban Murders: On the Rise" Newsweek (Feb 9 87)

"L.A. Law: Gangs and Crack" Newsweek (Apr 27 87)

"The Southwest Drug Connection" Newsweek (Nov 23 87)

"Drug Use: Down, But Not in the Ghetto" Newsweek (Nov 23 87)

"Tears of Rage" Time (Mar 14 88)

"Where the War Is Being Lost" Time (Mar 14 88)

"Kids Who Sell Crack" Time [cover story] (May 9 88)

"Crack" Newsweek [cover story] (Nov 28 88)

"Addictive Personalties" Newsweek [cover story] (Feb 20 89)

"Fighting on Two Fronts" Time (Aug 14 89)

"Bennett's Drug War" Newsweek (Aug 21 89)

"A Plague Without Boundries" Time (Nov 6 89)


                        BIBLIOGRAPHY

"Drug Abuse and Drug Abuse Research", U.S. Dept. of Health and
Human Services (NIDA is under this orginization), Rockville, Maryland,
1991.

Gans, Herbert J., "Deciding What's News", Vintage Books, New York,
1979.

Gitlin, Todd, "The Whole World Is Watching", Univ. of CA Press,
Berkeley, 1980.

Hertsgaard, Mark, "On Bended Knee", Schocken Books, 1988.

Hiebert, Ray E., ed., "What Every Journalist Should Know About the
Drug Abuse Crisis", Voice of America, Wash. DC., 1987?
        (this book has articles from Nancy Reagan and Ed Meese
         amoung others.)

Hoffman, Abbie, "Reefer Madness", The Nation, Nov. 21, 1987.

Levine, Michael, "Going Bad", Spin, June 1991.
        (this article is the story of a DEA agent disallusioned
         by the governments handling of the drug war)

"National Drug Control Strategy", U.S. Government document, 1990.

Shoemaker, Pamela J., ed., "Communication Campaigns About Drugs",
Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Hillsdale, NJ, 1989.
        (a suprisingly uninformative book.)

Trebach, Arhold S., ed., "Drug Policy 1989-1990: A Reformer's
Catalogue", The Drug Policy Foundation, Wash. DC, 1989.
        (an excellent resource for those interested in
         drug legalization.)

Some sources suggested to me that I didn't get a chance to read:

"The Great Drug War" by Arnold Treback.  Macmillan, 1987.
"Storming Heaven: LSD and the American Dream" by Jay Stevens,
Atlantic Monthly Press, 1987.
"Acid Dreams: The CIA, LSD, and the Sixties Revolution" by Martin
Lee (one of the founders of F.A.I.R.) and Bruce Shlain, Grove
Press, 1985.


[END OF PAPER]