ties to obtain health messages, the media would be seen as demonstrating greater corporate and civic responsibility, and the need for tighter regulation to ensure that licensing agreement requirements are being met would be diminished.

Historically, as mentioned above, the FCC has required that broadcast networks allot a certain amount of time to “the public interest.” Networks complied but often aired PSAs late at night, when few viewers were watching. This was, of course, the least valuable time that the networks had, and because the networks competed with one another, using late night television for nonpaid advertisements was sensible. A critical opportunity, however, was missed as corporations advertised their products, and the public interest was not served. The FCC should review the regulations governing broadcast and broadband media with an eye toward finding ways in which media institutions can serve the public’s interest in accurate health information without being unfairly burdened in the process.

Better placement of PSAs would benefit the public as well as the media, which will be seen as fully contributing to the public good. The committee recommends that the FCC review its regulations for PSA broadcasting on television and radio to ensure a more balanced broadcasting schedule that will reach a greater proportion of the viewing and listening audiences. This will benefit the public as well as the media’s image as a vital contributor to the public good.

Policy makers may ask if PSAs are more effective in reducing cigarette consumption than other measures, such as tobacco taxation. Hu and colleagues (1995) examined the relative effects of taxation versus an antismoking media campaign in California, as noted earlier. The study results indicate that both taxation and antismoking media campaigns are effective means of reducing cigarette consumption. The authors note, however, that the strength of the effects is related to the magnitude of the taxes and the amount of resources expended on the media campaign.

Corporations spend billions of dollars on paid advertising to promote their products. In 2001 (Ad Age, 2001), the 100 leading national advertisers spent well over $40 billion on advertising. The federal government is among these advertisers, with just over $1 billion spent on advertising-related activities. Competition between state government spending on health promotion and prevention activities (which may include advertising) and corporate marketing activities for products that undermine health is also in tremendous imbalance. The public is negatively influenced by corporate advertisers of unhealthy behaviors and products, with little counteradvertising that promotes positive health behaviors. For example, in 2000, state spending on tobacco use prevention was $768.4 million, whereas tobacco companies spent $9.7 billion on marketing across the states (National Center for Tobacco Free Kids, 2002). To deal with such an imbalance in