It’s the unflinching election season.
Tarpaulins and banners are now plastered on the streets and gates of certain households; political rallies are booming, jingles are overheard from neighboring houses and moving cars; and debates, interviews, and forums are now set in place.
But believe it or not, it’s not all fun and games on the eve and duration of the campaign period.
Everyone’s bets would need publicity through campaigning and media exposure. Through that, we could immediately distinguish the diverging line between elite and non-elite candidates vying for government positions.
As the elections near, the quest for finding the viable and befitting candidate has materialized in front of our eyes and breathed down our necks in anticipation. Who are we really pursuing our vote for, if there are popularity contests involved?
Understanding media and political influence are exceptionally crucial to avoid foolishness and getting hoodwinked into bouts of misinformation. Try to point a spotlight onto a subject who requires more lighting and their features will get highlighted. Turn that off and it will get dark, and at most times you’ll see nothing at all.
It’s time we choose where and which subject is best to turn the spotlight to. We don’t want a meager one with no depth and benevolent principle at all and only hogs the spotlight.
A quest for media inclusivity in the world of swarming elites
Photo courtesy of CNN Philippines
In the tomes of the media playbook, how will the non-elites increase their exposure in which the cream of the crop has already got a hold of?
In the Jessica Soho Presidential Interviews that aired live last Jan. 22, we witnessed elaboration of political agendas and feasible solutions by the four 一 supposedly five 一 survey front-runners for presidential candidacy namely Manila Mayor Isko Moreno, Senators Manny Pacquiao and Ping Lacson, and Vice President Leni Robredo. The late dictator’s son Bongbong Marcos Jr. was absent all throughout.
After Ms. Jessica Soho’s commendable interview stint with the four presidentiables, the remaining five were still unseen in the The 2022 Presidential Interviews of talk show host Boy Abunda; spanning in separate pre-recorded videos from Jan. 24 to Feb. 12. Ka Leody De Guzman’s presence was finally acknowledged through his interview that just got uploaded this March.
“It looks like those who are famous and rich are still a priority,” De Guzman mentioned after the television snub last January from Soho’s interviews.
De Guzman is one of the running presidential candidates whose platform delineated the voice and reason of the working class. He is a labor leader, activist, and president of the Partido Lakas ng Masa (PLM) with his running vice-presidential mate, Walden Bello.
PLM issued a statement regarding De Guzman’s exclusion from both official interviews which was a big starting point for all candidates to garner huge publicity and openness to their proposed platforms. Yet despite this problematic issue, it was a fruitful get-go to kickstart the campaign period last Feb. 8.
In this doomed reality where the non-elites are supposed to be of great attention, the underdogs go through much rougher times where exclusive media coverage is pervasive; with the common folk blissfully unaware of their stances and remaining only within their own cognitive biases.
Elections can turn into a big spectacle of glorified mass media where these mentioned repercussions aren’t noticeable enough to demand a great shift in exchanging relevant attention.
For democracy to be truly upheld within political discourses and engagement, there stands a “reasonable” duty of care for every profession. As educator and producer David Puttnam states it; “Isn’t it time that we develop a concept of a duty of care and extend it, to include a care for our shared but increasingly endangered democratic values?”
There should be a grown need to practice transparency when it comes to the future of our democracy, and that starts with a gradual uplifting of media diversity and inclusivity.
The Panata Sa Bayan: The KBP Presidential Forum included De Guzman along with the same lineup: Pacquiao, Robredo, Lacson, and Moreno; with the exclusion of remaining candidates namely former presidential spokesperson Ernesto Abella, former defense chief Norberto Gonzales, businessman Faisal Mangondato, and cardiologist and lawyer Doctor Jose Montemayor Jr. The forum became a breeding ground of insights and reformative policies in which all candidates must have been given the medium to answer.
Despite numerous factors feeding off of exclusionary media such as selective reporting and personality politics, beating it with diversity as well as plurality can be difficult but not completely impossible. If the media intensifies with a general goal of informing its audience rather than performing for it, so will expression and democracy.
Principle or popularity?
Photo courtesy of Interaksyon
CNN Philippines organized the most crucial debates and forums of the election season; both for presidential, vice-presidential, and senatorial candidates vying for their positions. I cannot emphasize enough how relevant these kinds of national debates were for all candidates because everyone got invited; and almost every aspirant got to say their part in the least bit of airtime provided, except for the absentees.
Debates are highly relevant and it’s the surefire一if not, admissible一 way to fully perceive your candidate more and their possible scheme of leadership.
Yet despite that, it might still not be enough.
Part of the problem lies within the media’s capacity and capability to broadcast these debates, forums, and interviews without the recurring thought of sacrificing air time just like in the CNN and Commission on Elections (COMELEC) debates. Not everyone got the chance to hold the torch, especially the lesser known aspirants.
So how powerful can the media become?
Aside from a result of clashing parties and bardagulan over on Facebook and social media sites, we also know of a certain Luke Espiritu who made waves during the SMNI Senatorial Debates and said everything that needs to be said: “Wag kang bastos!”
This occurred during the heated exchange between Espiritu, former presidential spokesperson Harry Roque, and suspended lawyer Larry Gadon regarding children acting as scapegoats for crimes.
Lawyer Luke Espiritu is the president of Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP), labor leader and lawyer running as a senatorial candidate under the same party as De Guzman and VP bet Walden Bello. His media exposure struck gold during the debate, as well as his driven passion for change.
Montemayor also caused waves off of social media and trended on Twitter during his clash with De Guzman during the CNN debates while garnering lots of good and bad publicity. And before things could cool down, another controversial ANC interview with interviewer Karmina Constantino followed it up.
The point here is that for the non-elites to at least secure the recognition and immediate exposure they rightly deserve, incidents or some big form of skirmish has to happen for them to get it. If it goes big, then it headlines the news; if it doesn’t, their standings remain as is and it becomes more difficult to surpass the popularity-rated names despite their fortified agendas.
Speaking of popular names in the political landscape, we also have to give the slightest bit of attention to personality politics that drive the divide further between inclusive media.
It’s a tad bit agreeable that it’s second nature by now and possibly unchanging due to its deep roots in the country’s long-standing political system; but realizing that we’re possibly being duped into it is a good start in addressing and avoiding tolerating it.
Many of our countrymen succumb to the ill-fated impulse of voting a candidate based on their public appearance and familiarity; and not with their competence. If you understand this, then you know who I’m talking about.
With dismal sighs, elections can then become a vicious period where impressions triumph and reign over absolute substance.
The media won’t go anywhere but our votes will
Photo courtesy of CNN Philippines
Another clash and contention of leadership abilities were seen in the COMELEC: PiliPinas Debates last March 19 to 20. This became another time for us to promote a sound discourse within ourselves and with other people on knowing each and every candidate’s plan of reform or action.
Removing biases aside, it’s highly pertinent to be critical of our candidates and their views, platforms, and ways of ideal public service. The underdogs may still be underdogs; but at the end of the day, you’d be surprised by their competence and drive for actual change who weighs better than empty promises and the gleaming stats sheet.
Don’t give in to the free trade of shining letters and false hope; instead, focus on their capacity for progressive leadership.
Even if our attention gets swayed by the bigger names in the media and political scene, we can either choose to spare a glance or give our full attention; but first and foremost, we have to safeguard our ability in choosing who to vote for.
It starts with a bountiful practice of probing and exploring; of comparing and scrutinizing beliefs, ideas, intentions, and programs. Remaining within our own realm of intense bigotry and ignorance will never get us anywhere; and it will, in fact, discredit our need for educational and free-flowing discourse.
The media should always be inclusive of everyone and every party involved; not just the notorious but also the low-profile. Allow inquiry and curiosity to persist rather than just familiarity because these candidates are here for a reason.
Again, it’s far better to point the spotlight on someone who shines brightly despite being in the dark. We don’t want another cloud to rain on our hope for the country and for a better future.
Sophia Katherine Sarmiento
Comments
