DRUG NARRATIVES AND DIFFERENCES IN IDEOLOGICAL CONTENT ACROSS VARYING ECONOMIC MODELS OF TELEVISION A Dissertation Submitted to the Temple University Graduate Board In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY by Katrina L. Flener May 2014 Examining Committee Members: Dr. Carolyn Kitch, Advisory Chair, Department of Journalism Dr. Jan Fernback, Department of Media Studies and Production Dr. Kathleen Auerhahn, Department of Criminal Justice Dr. Dustin Kidd, External Member, Temple, Department of Sociology ii © Copyright 2014 by Katrina Flener All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT This dissertation critically examines televised narratives that depict illicit drug use, the drug trade, and the war on drugs across three different economic models of television. The commercial television industry in the United States has historically relied on an audience commodity, airing programs that primarily serve as the “free lunch” to entice viewers to watch advertisements (Smythe, 1977/1997). However, premium subscription cable networks such as HBO produce programming in order to sell the programming itself, and hence rely on content as the commodity. The dissertation compares the ideological content of the illicit drug-related narratives found on three platforms of American television: broadcast television; premium subscription cable; and basic cable, with channels that rely on a hybrid audience/content commodity (with a dual revenue stream from advertisers and per-subscriber fees). Relying on critical cultural perspectives, narrative and critical discourse analysis, and a sample of roughly 400 hours of television programming, the research demonstrates how drug-related depictions and narratives on television most commonly support and occasionally challenge dominant ideological assumptions about drug use and the moral appropriateness of drug prohibition policies. Further, the research shows that there are patterned differences in the representations, narratives, and ideological content based on the commodity form of the network for which the programming was produced. iv DEDICATION For my Mom, whose fear that drugs and TV might one day fry my brain has essentially been realized through writing this dissertation: I miss you. And for Bubble & the Worm: Thank you for your patience while mommy worked on her paper. Just Say Know. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS So many people have played important roles in helping me get to this point. I feel incredibly fortunate to have had Dr. Carolyn Kitch in my corner for all these years as my advisor, mentor, committee chair, and occasional cheerleader. I honestly cannot imagine having completed this without her guidance, invaluable feedback, and support. The other members of my committee also played essential roles in helping to make the dissertation stronger. Dr. Kate Auerhahn provided detailed and insightful comments that helped me fill in gaps, correct errors, and see some of the bigger picture, and Dr. Jan Fernback’s thoughtful feedback helped bring purpose to the analysis. Dr. John Lent, who served on my committee earlier in the process, inspired me and helped me stay true to my critical purpose. And finally, as my outside reader, Dr. Dustin Kidd offered the type of meaningful and reassuring feedback that allows me to see where the research might go next. I also need to acknowledge Dr. Katherine Fry, my Carolyn of my Master’s program at Brooklyn College where I first started to think critically about drugs on TV. I have also had tremendous support from family and friends. My dad, even though he is still not exactly sure what it is that I study, has been tirelessly supportive of this very long process, and my mother-in-law, aside from being my Breaking Bad viewing buddy, has provided the confidence-inspiring belief-in-myself type of reassurance that my mom is no longer able to offer. My many friends in the program, especially Mary Beth, Byron, Siobahn, Tina, Amanda, and Jordan, have all helped me keep my sanity and my sense of humor. And finally, absolutely none of this could have been possible without C-Span, my rock, my best friend, and my sometimes editor. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iii DEDICATION ................................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................v LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii CHAPTERS 1. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1 2. ILLEGAL DRUGS: THE CONTEXT OF PROHIBITION, A RANGE OF PERSPECTIVES, AND AN OVERVIEW OF THE RELEVANT LITERATURE .............................................................................................................14 3. THEORY AND METHOD..........................................................................................37 4. THE CHOICE TO USE DRUGS ................................................................................57 5. SUBSTANCE DEPENDENCE, THE ADDICT, AND RECOVERY ......................107 6. THE DRUG TRADE AND THE WAR ON DRUGS ...............................................176 7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS ..................................................239 REFERENCE LIST .........................................................................................................276 APPENDICES A. SAMPLE ARRANGED BY PLATFORM ................................................................293 B. PROGRAMS WITH EPISODES REFERENCED ....................................................296 C. STANDARD QUESTIONS CONSIDERED ............................................................298 D. ANTICIPATED FAMILIAR DISCOURSES ...........................................................299 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Modification of table used by Goode (2011)………………….……………... 122 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION A content analysis of 1998’s top-rated broadcast programs commissioned by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) found that most mentions or depictions of illicit drug use on television either included an anti-drug moral or showed a negative consequence of illicit drug use (Christenson, Henriksen, & Roberts, 2000). My own quantitative content analysis of drug-related storylines in scripted programming broadcast in prime time during the late 1990s and early 2000s similarly found negative consequences to almost all involvement with illicit drugs (either through use or selling). Additionally, mentions of counter-hegemonic views regarding drug policy, including legalization, decriminalization, harm reduction, or medical marijuana were found to be virtually non-existent (Flener, 2004). However, after years of watching television with an awareness of the infrequency with which drug policy reform perspectives are even acknowledged, I was surprised to notice the existence of alternative and opposing viewpoints depicted within a few more recent television programs. I saw that casual marijuana use by lead characters with no negative consequences was a staple of HBO’s Entourage, and I noted the sympathetic treatment of lead character drug dealers on both Showtime’s Weeds and HBO’s The Wire. It soon became apparent that most of these atypical depictions were in programs produced for subscription-based premium cable networks. This led me to critically consider the commodity form of television and its possible influence on content. Dallas Smythe (1977/1997) argued that the commodity of media—particularly commercial television—is the audience, since the attention of consumers is what is 2 actually bought and sold. Since Smythe’s seminal essay, several scholars have expanded on this idea by noting that not all viewers are valued equally and arguing that programming may be systematically skewed in order to attract a specific privileged white male demographic (e.g., Gandy, 2004; Meehan, 1984, 2002/2006). Jhally and Livant (1986) noted that for the business model to succeed, not just any programming can air—it must be programming that is suitable to the marketing needs of the advertisers. However, not all commercial media rely on an advertiser-supported model. Graham Murdock (1978/1997) questioned whether it was appropriate to ascribe the same reasoning to Hollywood films, a medium for which the content is the primary commodity and not simply a means to sell other products. The ideological role of entertainment television has been examined in depth by many scholars (e.g., Gitlin, 1979; Lewis, 1991; White, 1992). Most of these studies have focused on how commercial broadcast television supports conservative, status quo ideologies (See White, 1992, pp. 200-202 for an overview of some of the important scholarship in this vein). Conversely, there is a growing body of literature that recognizes counter-hegemonic discourse in programs produced for subscription networks (e.g., several of the essays in Edgerton & Jones, 2008). However, variations in the ideological perspective of television programming based on its primary economic role have been less frequently addressed. Lavoie (2011) provided a concise review of some of the scholarly work addressing subversive television programs, all but one of which focus on a subscription network show (pp. 913-914). In his own