Laura M. Johnson

J413 Capstone

Final Draft

11 June 2012

The Power of Edu-tainment:

Exploring the Role of Pro-Social Messaging in US Television

In one of the most celebrated TV moments of 2011, Blaine admitted his love for Kurt, confessing, “I’ve been looking for you forever [… ] You move me, Kurt.” With these words, fans around the world swooned as Blaine and Kurt, two characters on the television show Glee, finally kissed. A story on National Public Radio this month entitled, “How TV Brought Gay People into our Homes” explains, “Glee is just one of many popular shows on television right now that feature gay characters. Those characters aren’t just entertaining us, they’re changing Americans’ attitudes toward homosexuality.” On Wednesday May 8^th, 2012, President Barack Obama announced his support of gay marriage to ABC’s Robin Roberts saying, “At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.” Did Blaine and Kurt’s kiss change the president’s mind about gay marriage? – Of course not. However, Obama has said that younger generations “are much more comfortable with it” than older generations, and the popularity of Glee is proof. The presence of gay characters on one of television’s most popular programs puts this issue into the public consciousness, and suggests that society, comprised of media consumers, is influenced by popular media. Thus, television and popular media are undoubtedly extremely powerful tools. While many people accept the power of media, many people do not realize that sometimes third party organizations use the power of media intentionally to put issues and ideas into the public consciousness.

Since the dawn of television, television programming has encouraged social reform and has increased public awareness. Sometimes the mere creation of certain television shows, such as depictions of gay couples on Glee, normalize and support new ideas that are not accepted by society as a whole. Other times, television is used strategically by outside public service organizations to educate audiences about issues of public importance. In 1970, David Poindexter, a minister began lobbying for entertainment programming to include social and environmental issues, and in 1977 he founded Population Communications International (PCI) which develops pro-social programming internationally. In 1972, over 130 programming hours were reviewed and it was discovered that “70% of health-related content was ‘inaccurate, misleading or both’.”[1] These events set the scene for organized efforts to work with the entertainment television industry to educate through entertainment.

However, as society changes, so too do the strategies. Recent efforts by public service organizations aim to work together with television producers to incorporate “pro-social messages” into programming just as advertisers use product placement. “Prosocial messages” are defined as “any communication that depicts cognitive, affective, and behavioral activities considered to be socially desirable or preferable by most members of a society.”[2] Advertisers have used marketing communication strategies to influence attitudes and behaviors in order to get audiences to buy products, and similarly over the last several decades, public service organizations have used marketing communication strategies to encourage “buy-in” and to educate the public through various campaigns. Media professionals have launched campaigns to promote fire safety, exercise, seat belt use, smoking cessation, responsible drinking, condom usage, and dozens of other behaviors and beliefs.[3] However, there has been considerable debate regarding the placement of messages into popular media, which questions its ethicality and affectability. This project will respond to concerns as well as elaborate on potential solutions.

ENTERTAINMENT-EDUCATION: WHAT IS IT?

Instead of including a scene where an actor uses a new cell phone or eats a Subway sandwich, public service organizations advocate for storylines and dialogues between characters which shed light on diseases, social justice issues, environmental causes etc. This has been called “message placement” and is associated with a contemporary media strategy known as “entertainment-education (E-E)”. E-E has become an emphasis of study in educational institutions around the world.[4] In the US, one of the most influential is the Norman Lear Center, part of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California. In the book Entertainment-Education and Social Change, Arvind Singhal and Everett M. Rogers, two pioneers within the field, define E-E as “the process of purposely designing and implementing a media message to both entertain and educate, in order to increase audience members’ “knowledge” about an educational issue, create favorable attitudes, shift social norms, and change overt behavior. Entertainment-education is not a theory of communication. Rather, it is a communication strategy to bring about behavioral and social change”. [5]

Of course, a crucial component when analyzing the motivations and effects of E-E is acknowledging the non-neutral nature of knowledge. Based on Singhal and Everett’s definition, E-E appears clear-cut, but the lines are anything but clear. For whenever an outside force attempts to directly change society’s beliefs, its process must be questioned-- especially in the case of E-E, where these “implement[ed] media messages” are embedded into entertainment and consumed without the full awareness of the audience. Due to this ever present potential harm, the ethical considerations continue to be explored by advocates of E-E. In their article, “Ethical Considerations”, William Brown and Arvind Singhal outline five important ethical questions which must be considered by producers, government officials, and media scholars regarding E-E. [6]

1. Is it ethical to use communication and marketing strategies to systematically influence societal beliefs and behaviors?

2. Who is best qualified to make the decision about prosocial and antisocial messages in the popular media?

3. Is it ethical to target messages to a particular audience group in exclusion of others?

4. Is it ethical for nations that control the media to export their own cultural values and believes?

5. Should we risk the unintended consequences of media designed to promote social change?

In the interest of length, this project will examine the first, second and fifth points of discussion presented by Brown and Singhal.

Early studies of media propaganda in the 1920s and 1930s examined the wide-scale use of media to promote social change. Through film and television, countries such as the United States, Britain, Germany and Japan raised public support for military objectives during WWII. Since then, there has been misuse of media as a control tool. However, due to the “overwhelming evidence that films and television programs have measurable effects on people,”[7] if all popular media with persuasive influence was eliminated, there would be little content left. Although much research has warned of the negative impacts of television, it is also believed that persuasive popular media can have extremely positive effects. “Persuasion is a necessary part of a free and democratic society.[8] According to Brown and Singhal, the use of popular media to persuade audiences to change destructive behaviors in order to adopt prosocial believes and behaviors is ethical.

Secondly, there is no single set of moral and ethical values which can be used to distinguish between prosocial and antisocial messages. Thus, the concern is, “who will decide for whom what is prosocial?”[9] Government control of the media is highly alarming to most Americans, so the responsibility for media content falls almost entirely to producers and those who influence them, such as advertisers. Yet still moral issues arise-- not everyone is going to agree with every depiction they see on television. Therefore, the duty falls upon audiences to make personal decisions about which shows they choose to watch according to their individual ethical and moral codes.

Finally, it must be acknowledged that the consequences of promoting beliefs and behaviors through television are complex and not entirely controllable. Despite good intentions, adverse results can occur. Yet, when handled carefully, television can be a powerful tool to encourage healthy behaviors and lifestyles.

E-E uses television characters as role models to encourage pro-social behavior.[10] Through the use of positive role models, negative role models, and transitional role models (characters who are resistant to change but gradually accept pro-social behavior), audiences can experience messages in engaging, relatable situations. It is because of this attempt to bring about behavioral and social change through dialogue and narrative that “message placement” is associated with E-E, even if not all these initiatives adhere to strict E-E guidelines.

In 2009, the New York Times published an article describing such a deal between the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Viacom (the parent company of MTV and its sister networks VH1, Nickelodeon and BET) and defined its application of this strategy as follows:

It could be called “message placement”: the social or philanthropic corollary to product placement deals in which marketers pay to feature products in shows and movies. Instead of selling Coca-Cola or G.M. cars, they promote education and healthy living… The efforts of philanthropies to influence entertainment programming is not new, although viewers are probably less aware of it then obvious marketing tie-ins in which, for example, a can of Coca-Cola shows up in a character’s hands.

The key difference between traditional product placement and this “message placement”, however, is that past message placement campaigns have been free, collaborative projects between media producers and outside organizations. However, the Gates Foundation is an exception—they will be paying for their television shows.[11] Also, the Gates Foundation example raises many issues regarding Brown and Singhal’s earlier question, “who has the right to determine what is “prosocial” and good?” For not all people agree with the educational policies of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The concept of organizations working with the entertainment industry to embed messages into popular television remains a relatively unknown phenomenon and may be initially surprising. The NYT articles continues to explain the Gates Foundation’s initiative to work in conjunction with producers of the popular television shows to shape story lines and insert the foundation’s social messaging regarding H.I.V. prevention, surgical safety and the spread of infectious diseases. The articles points out that not only has the Gates Foundation employed this strategy in the past, but the Foundation is not the first to integrate strategic messaging into popular television shows.[12] In fact, the concept of structuring coherent, highly targeted programs to utilize mass communication, in this case television, in order to affect individual behaviors and social norms has been around for decades.

THE HARVARD ALCOHOL PROJECT

In 1988, the Harvard School of Public Health's Center for Health Communication partnered with major Hollywood studios and television networks on the Harvard Alcohol Project’s Designated Driver Campaign, which sought to integrate “designated drivers” into story lines and dialogues of popular television shows such as The Cosby Show, Cheers, and LA Law.

This is a successful example of a collaborative media campaign for several reasons. First, the premise is simple, meaning easily understood and executable—a component that cannot be stressed enough when attempting to mobilize through mass communication. Projects that overreach or are too complicated can be met with social or economic resistance. The results of a simple idea can have complex implications and far-reaching throughout society. In the case of introducing designated drivers, the concept, according to the Harvard report, “promotes a new social norm, a new social expectation, that the driver does not drink any alcohol; lends social legitimacy to the non-drinking option; encourages people to plan ahead when they are going out for the evening; and places the issue of driving-after-drinking on the interpersonal agendas of couples and small groups.”[13] Additionally, it was not anti-alcohol or anti-partying—ideas that would not have been well-received, especially by companies that advertise such products during air-time, such as alcohol. (Advertising alcohol and other unhealthy products is another potential critique regarding Hollywood’s willingness to be accountable). Thus, these implications had wide public support and did not trigger any economic resistance. In 1991, “designated driver” was added to Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary.[14] Within one year of the launch of the campaign, the Roper Organization conducted a detailed study of U.S. adults and their familiarity with the term. Highlighted below are Roper's 1991 findings, with selected comparisons to 1989:

• Ninety-three percent of Americans characterized the designated driver concept as an "excellent" or "good" idea (71%, excellent; 22%, good). Among all drunk driving prevention strategies, U.S. adults gave their strongest endorsement to the use of designated drivers.

• Thirty-seven percent of U.S. adults had themselves refrained from drinking in order to be a designated driver at least once in their lifetime, up sharply from 29% in 1989.

• Fifty-two percent of U.S. adults younger than 30 had been a designated driver, up from 43% in 1989.[15]

Through inserting drunk-driving prevention messages and frequent references to the use of designated drivers into primetime television, Harvard’s Designated Driver Campaign is marked as the first successful effort to mobilize the Hollywood creative community on a massive scale, using mass communication as a health promotion technology.

A critique of this project is that although Hollywood is willing to advocate “safe drinking” in some regards, they actually promote unhealthy lifestyles in other ways. Although the Harvard Campaign is older, an article from February 2012 by CBC news addresses how films depicting partying and binge drinking, such as the box office hit Bridesmaids, are responsible for prompting young people to drink,[16] which raises many potential arguments for how Hollywood should be more socially accountable in its programming.

BENEFITS OF ENTERTAINMENT EDUCATION FOR PUBLIC AWARENESS

Television has the potential to provide public awareness where it is lacking. For example, the United States spends $2 trillion annually on health care[17]—more than any other nation in the world. However, despite the massive resources, tens of millions of Americans suffer from preventable illnesses and chronic diseases. The importance placed behind prevention through educating about health concerns before they become a problem seems simple; however, 95 percent of the annual, $2 trillion spending goes to medical interventions and health care services, also known as “sick care”, leaving little financial room for preventative education. In light of this lack of resources for preventative education, public service groups have found creative ways to spread public service messages to the public. In a 2002 survey by Kaiser Family Foundation of 3500 regular viewers of NBC’s ER, over half said they learn about important health issues from watching the show. One in seven talked to their doctors about a medical issue featured on the show, and more than one in five consulted other sources for additional information after an episode.

In a manual entitled “Your Issue Here: Working with Hollywood to Deliver Your Message to Millions”, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) a national philanthropy outlines how non-profits, advocacy groups and others can team up with television producers to get their messages written into programming and delivered out to audiences. The RWJF equates the transformative power of television to the Wizard of Oz because it too has the ability “to instill courage in the fearful, to enlighten the uninformed, and to give heart to those in need.” In 2002, a Kaiser Family Foundation report outlined why television is such a powerful public awareness tool. Instead of facts and figures, policy issues appear in “real” situations “involving characters the audience cares about... often in life or death situations.”[18]

Using such emotion to send a message aligns well with the aim of entertainment, where often the point is to tell a good story, which strongly depends on the use of a strong narrative. Walter Fisher’s Narrative Theory (1987) explains that narrative is especially successful at dealing with the affective and emotional aspects of human communication, and that “emotions are an important form of human experience, which can trigger, for instance, changes in preventative health behaviors.”[19] For this reason, narratives and their abilities to affect emotions are key elements of E-E. This phenomenon is easily understood through a common example cited repeatedly in E-E literature, “For instance, witnessing the death from AIDS of a favorite soap opera character, and seeing the grief of his parents, infected widow, and child, may serve as a more powerful trigger for adopting a prevention behavior than rationally-structured media messages promoting condom use and other safer sex behaviors.”[20]

Due to the success of the Harvard Campaign, dozens of organizations have appeared in Hollywood with the purpose of altering or improving portrayals of particular issues in television and film.[21] Below are some recent examples of collaborations between public service organizations and entertainment programming.

· The America Heart Association (AHA) has worked with NBC’s Passions and Days of Our Lives to promote its “Go Red for Women” campaign by placing posters on sets, pins on lab coats and even dressing characters during one crucial scene in red dresses.

· The Media Project, a nonprofit specializing in reproductive and sexual health issues worked with writers of CBS’s legal drama, Judging Amy and Dawson’s Creek, to provide latest research about legislative issues and statistics to writers. For a three episode about HIV on Girlfriends, Media Project assembled a panel of real-life women infested with the virus.

· The Down Syndrome Association of Los Angeles introduced an episode writer of NBC’s Law & Order: SVU to the staff of a Down syndrome adult day program. They also arranged an interview between scriptwriters of CBS’s The Guardian and an actor with Down syndrome in order to educate writers about what it actually means to live with Down syndrome.

· National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign holds informational briefings for writers, one of which inspired the creation of a new character on Judging Amy. Another inspired ABC’s All My Children to produce a storyline on the drug Ecstasy.

· Children Now, a children’s advocacy group, so convincingly demonstrated the lack of Latinos in the media that Nick Jr. created Dora the Explorer, which became the most popular show for children aged 2-5 after debuting in 2000.

These examples could go on and on. As one can see, public service organizations are constantly seeking out ways to connect with media producers to get their messages into the public realm beyond characters and dialogue—even changing costumes and ensuring statistical accuracy.

ARTISTIC AUTONOMY

Hollywood writers and producers are charged with the task of making a profit through telling good stories; therefore, they are not responsible for promoting pro-social messages, nor is it their responsibility to market for public service organizations. These collaborations do not mean that media producers are willing to hand over the production reigns to the first organization that pitches a cause. Often times, there is a hesitance to pursue long-term collaboration with service organization because writers want to maintain their creative autonomy. Although folks on the media side have also commented on the potential benefits of non-profit collaboration, many approach the relationship with caution. Neal Baer, physician and executive producer of Law & Order: SVU explains, “I’m not a conduit for nonprofit’s messages. I think it’s a very slippery slope to get in bed with nonprofits to get their messages across. I have truly no interest in their messages. Now, that doesn’t mean I’m not interested in the research. Nor does it mean I’m not interested in putting very controversial and political issues on my show, because I am.” [22]

Numerous organizations have encouraged incorporation of pro-social messaging into television shows by becoming a go-to source for information on a specific issue. Instead of trying to control story lines or program content, organizations provide hard facts and offer suggestions of how their cause could be incorporated into the show not how it should be. Sometimes this is just through making themselves available to show writers, and other time it is through the creation of an accurate website that is easily accessible to writers.[23]

Particularly for shows constantly featuring new health issues, shocking story lines and controversial political themes, writers want to have the most up-to-date information they can find. So although they may not want to engage in a full-on collaborative effort, they do want to be factually accurate. In a 2005 interview with the Hollywood Reporter, Paul Haggis, screenwriter of Million Dollar Baby says, "In television, when anyone brings you research around an interesting issue, you often leap at working on the idea because you're usually brain-dead after Episode 10…We also want to be socially responsible in what we do."[24] Although there are obvious critiques and considerations that must be acknowledged when looking at television that pushes an agenda, the power of television leaves room much room for public education. For Baer, "You might argue it's entertainment, but people still get their health information from television so I think it's incumbent on us to be as accurate as possible. We have some responsibility toward the audience."[25]

ER, one of the shows incorporated in the deal between Viacom and the Gates Foundation, has shed light on issues of public importance, even before it was associated with Bill & Melinda Gates. Johns Well, producer of ER explains how the show was able to address global awareness, “We turned some attention on the Congo and on Darfur when nobody else was. We had a bigger audience than a nightly newscast will ever see, making 25 to 30 million people aware of what was going on in Africa… The show is not about telling people to eat their vegetables, but if we can do that in an entertaining context, then there’s nothing better.”[26] Although ER was not designed as a platform of social education, the popularity of the show puts it in a unique position to do just that. It is this unique position that is integral when balancing the relationship between television and education. For although critics of E-E may suggest that it is not the role of television to promote social causes, historically this is something that television has often taken upon itself, with or without the influence of outside sources.

Resistance to Entertainment-Education

Of course it is important to consider resistances to E-E. Public service organizations, Hollywood insiders and E-E professionals must be conscientious about how projects are produced, formulated, funded, distributed etc. One reason is simply that media viewers do not like feeling like television shows are preaching to them. However, the worst possible outcome of E-E is viewers taking away wrong and potentially damaging messages.

For example, in Norman Lear (The namesake of the Annenberg’s Norman Lear Center)’s popular sit-com All in the Family, audience members were presented with positive and negative role models. When Vidmar and Rokeach (1974) investigated the perceived lessons taken away by some audience members they found that Archie Bunker, a “bigoted character” was actually perceived as “lovable, down-to-earth, honest, and predictable.”[27] Because these audience members shared some of the same opinions, they identified with Archie and condoned his use of racial slurs. In this instance, the use of a negative role model reinforced, rather than reduced social prejudice.

The Evolution of Entertainment-Education

Shows such as All in the Family made way for less aggressive instances of entertainment-education in the 1980s, when issues ranging from suicide to helium huffing would be discussed on popular television during “Very Special Episodes” (V.S.E.) The V.S.E. was marketed as "an episode your family can't afford to miss", and it meant that a normally light-hearted show would be dealing with a more serious, often moral issue. These issues were dealt with very dramatically. In one Very Special Episode of Growing Pains, Mathew Perry played Carol Seaver's teenage boyfriend who dies of injuries sustained in a car accident after a night of underage drinking. Now-a-days, such an obvious “after school special” message would appear ridiculous. The evidence of this is seen through the many parodies which exist today of television shows with “very special messages,” such as Comedy Central’s Strangers With Candy, a television show inspired by the public-service film The Trip Back. In each episode, Geraldine Antonia "Jerri" Blank, the protagonist, deals with issues of peer pressure, tattling, racism, and drug use, and always ends up making the wrong decision. In an episode concerning eating disorders, Jerri decides bulimia is okay because it makes people pay attention to you. In a 2003 NYT articles entitled “When Episodes Could Still Be Very Special,” Emily Nussbaum concludes that “The V.S.E. requires innocence of a degree hard to imagine for today’s wise-cracking characters… Perhaps television has become less defensive about its lack of nutritional value. Or maybe we’ve actually grown and changed: perhaps audiences have become too familiar with TV conventions to accept such easy closure.”[28] Examples presented earlier demonstrate that popular television is still very much concerned with presenting quality content to viewers. Therefore, it is more likely that media has had to change. In today’s society, subtler messaging is needed.

Allowing Entertainment to just be Entertainment

Although television has the potential to make strong social statements, that does not mean it always should. Lawrence O’Donnell, executive producer for the West Wing states, “If you wake up and say, ‘I want to write a show that makes a statement’, I guarantee you that will be a bad show. It’s just a bad place to start writing. What everybody in television should be trying to do is entertain.” [29] Sometimes the most effective way to raise awareness about an issue is to simply allow characters to exist. Jeff Greenstein, writer for Will & Grace says, “Will & Grace waved the flag of equality and homosexuality by its very existence.” During the run of the show, gay marriage became a major issue in the news, but instead of tackling the issue through content, the show decided not to. “It would make us seem like we’re politicians…I feel a more subtle… approach is always better than something that feels overt.”[30]

Peter Dinklage, also known as Tyrion from the popular television show Game of Thrones, is a dwarf, but he hesitates to use his fame as a soapbox. While receiving a Golden Globe this year, used his speech time to draw attention to a hate crime committed against a British dwarf, but after the event Dinklage declined offers to appear on talks shows to discuss the event further because, “I have a friend who says the world doesn’t need another angry dwarf.” He doesn’t feel a sense of responsibility to be an advocate on behalf of dwarves, but he would like to push things forward through his work. “I just want to work… The idea is to get to that level where you don’t have to preach about it anymore.”[31] Just as Dinklage believes that the greatest way to normalize people his size is to simply work hard and exist within the entertainment industry. Similarly, although popular media has the power to influence society, their first priority is to create entertaining content—not to provide a platform for public service organizations.

Conclusion

The effectiveness of using mass media to educate the public about diseases, human rights and issues of national and global importance is undeniable. However, it is important to think critically about the media we consume, especially when there are organizations working with the entertainment to influence changes in behavior. Messages can be controversial and often subjective, thus it is important to maintain the independence of the entertainer and alert an audience when shows are subtly infused with content and messages brought about from associations with an outside partner. Television has always recognized its potential as a method of mass education, but as society changes, so too do the strategies that are used to reach audiences. Obvious educational campaigns would not be effective today, thus subtler messaging is needed as well as organizations and Hollywood writers and producers who strive for accuracy, not just advocacy. When attempting to use television as a tool, it must be considered that there are potential harms and ethical considerations, which must be weighed when working with outside organizations. Because of the potential positive impacts television can have on society, we should encourage the continued study of effectively using entertainment as an educational tool. Popular media is far-reaching, and the fictional setting breathes life into facts and figures that may not be understood otherwise.

Bibliography

Books

Airhihenbuwa, Collins O. Health and culture: beyond the Western paradigm. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publishers, 1995.

Bettinghaus, Erwin Paul, and Michael J. Cody. Persuasive communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1987.

Singhal, Arvind. Entertainment-education and Social Change: History, Research, and Practice. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004.

Articles & Reports

Bouman, Martine. "Turtles and Peacocks: Collaboration in Entertainment-Education Television". Communication Theory. 12 (2): 225-244, 2002.

Brown, William J., and Arvind Singhal. "Ethical considerations of promoting prosocial messages through the popular media." Journal of Popular Film & Television 21, no. 3 (Fall93 1993): 92. Communication & Mass Media Complete.

Brailsford, Karen and Andy Goodman, “Your Issue Here. Working with Hollywood to Deliver your Message to Millions”. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 2006.

Hiatt, Brian. “Master of the Game.” Rolling Stone. May 24, 2012.

Nussbaum, Emily. “When Episodes Could Still Be Very Special.” New York Times. April 13, 2003.

NA. “How Pro-Social Messages Make Their Way into Entertainment Programming”. A Report to the Carnegie Foundation on Media, Citizens & Democracy. USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center.

“A special report to Anheuser-Busch by the Roper Organization.” The Roper Organization.; 24-26., 1991.

“The social climate for drinking: a Roper analysis prepared for the House of Seagram.” The Roper Organization; 25, 1990.

Signorielli, Nancy. “Health Images on Television.” Health Communication Research: A Guide to Developments and Directions. Eds. Lorraine D. Jackson and Bernard K. Duffy. Greenwood Press, Westport: Connecticut: 164-179.

Winsten, Jay. “Promoting designated drivers: the Harvard Alcohol Project.” Am J Prev Med. May-Jun;10(3 Suppl):11-4, 1994.

Online

“How TV Brought Gay People Into Our Homes”. NPR Online> Arts & Life> Pop Culture> Television. May 12, 2012. Accessed online: http://www.npr.org/2012/05/12/152578740/how-tv-brought-gay-people-into-our-homes

“Alcohol in Films May Boost Youth Drinking.” CBC News. February 21, 2012. Accessed online: http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2012/02/21/health-teen-alcohol.html

"'ER' closes door, leaves behind satisfying legacy". MSNBC. March 23, 2009. Accessed online: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/29843242/ns/today-entertainment/t/er-closes-doors-leaves-satisfying-legacy/

Schiller, Gail. “Public service advocates find new roles in H'wood.” The Hollywood Reporter. March 22, 2005. Accessed online: http://judgingamy.tripod.com/amy/news/a050322hr.htm