Vantage Point
Beyond the TV Ads
Television is generally acknowledged to have the longest reach
of all the media today, with audience access estimated at 96 percent of
all Filipinos nationwide.
Much has thus been said about TV's being the political battleground in
the campaign for this year's elections
BY LUIS V. TEODORO
Business Mirror
Posted by Bulatlat
TELEVISION is generally acknowledged to have the longest reach of all the
media today, with audience access estimated at 96 percent of all Filipinos
nationwide.
Much has thus been said about TV's being the political battleground in the
campaign for this year's elections. The candidates' media gurus know this
if they know nothing else. Thus the political ads that
television-especially the two major networks ABS-CBN and GMA-7-is
attracting even at this early stage, which should translate into hefty
increases (by as much as 10 percent) in their revenues for this year.
The key word is "revenues," which at the candidates' end means "expenses."
The extensive reach of television means TV ads aren't cheap. A 30-second
ad during prime time, for example, can cost as much as P250,000 ($5,149.86
at an exchange rate of $1=P48.454). A TV ad campaign can thus run to
nearly a hundred million per station.
Most of the candidates this year have turned to the Internet and to
podcasts in an effort to cut costs and to "even the playing field". But
the Internet suffers from limited access, despite the falling prices of
PCs and laptops and the drop in the cost of connections to the Web.
Romantics and optimists will tell you there's the proliferation of
Internet cafes, but it's doubtful if most of their customers are lining up
to access Noynoy Aquino's latest podcast or Ping Lacson's website.
Television not only has the reach. It also has the captive audience that's
glued to that popular soap during prime time into which a political ad can
be inserted with little risk of anyone's turning the set off. If
television is thus the field of combat where who gets to sit in the Senate
floor or in gallery will be decided, those who intend to do battle in it
better come prepared with the huge budgets required.
While it's all very nice to point out how well-done some of the early-bird
politicians' ads are, which of them are ineffective, and which can stand
some tweaking, the real bottom line is the impact of this contest on us
poor folk who will have to live with such consequences as Cesar Montano's
or Richard Gomez's making it to the Senate.
If what the elections this year and in the coming years will be decided by
who has the most ads or the most effective ones, it means the golden rule
of politics all over again-who has the gold rules. Who has the means will
prevail, given the cost not only of airing TV ads but also of producing
them.
What about those who don't have the resources but who may have the brains
to actually craft the laws this country needs? If it's going to be a
battle of the ads alone, they won't, or will hardly, count. Ergo, this
year as in years past, it will be money politics all over again that will
be in the winners' circle.
Today the key
question when it comes to the media's role in a democracy is how the less
moneyed but possibly brighter and more principled can access the
electorate to offset the inherent advantage of those whose war chests run
into the billions.
Not only can fair, relevant and accurate media coverage enable those who
can't afford to pay hundreds of millions for ads gain the name recognition
Philippine politics puts a premium on. Even more importantly can they
inform voters about their plans and programs through thoughtful media
coverage.
In 2004, a Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility monitor of media
coverage of the campaign and elections that year found that media,
particularly TV, coverage was less than thoughtful.
While there were
initial efforts to make the coverage of the campaign meaningful,
eventually the coverage regressed into the usual videos of candidates'
out- of- town sorties. There was a preponderance of reports on who was
leading whom in the surveys (otherwise known as the horse race).
Television news also devoted entire segments to the doings of celebrity or
celebrity-associated candidates (among them Manuel "Mar" Roxas, whose TV
ads advantage was augmented by repeated coverage of his "relationship"
with a TV anchor).
The focus on the two main "contenders" for the presidency was to the
exclusion of such candidates as Raul Roco. (The rare times in which Roco
was covered almost exclusively had to do with his illness and departure
for the United States.)
There was no coverage of the crucial party-list elections except in those
instances when these groups were accused of being communist fronts. Except
for Mar Roxas, there was very little coverage of other candidates for
senator, and zero on what the advocacies of the candidates were--or if
they had any at all. Mostly the "issues" covered had nothing to do with
platforms or programs, and everything to do with such scandals as an
ex-wife's accusation that a candidate had not been providing child
support.
Given the quality of the 2004 coverage, it's safe to say that, except when
they were shaped by fraud, the results were at least partly the doing of
the media. The shift from print to TV ads during the campaign was already
pronounced even before 2004. But that is not as important as how
television-and the other media-will cover the elections this year.
The two major networks launched with much fanfare their commitment to
sustained coverage of the campaign and elections this year. Let's hope
they mean "better," and that, in exchange for the increased revenues
they'll be making this year, they will provide the public information
beyond what the ads provide. Published in Business Mirror/Posted by
Bulatlat
BACK TO
TOP ■
PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION ■
COMMENT
© 2007 Bulatlat
■
Alipato Publications
Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided
its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.