If the Tulfos are the medium, they are also the message. And it may seem that the nation is in a state of flux but their sudden rise actually reflects the continuing crisis that plagues Philippine politics. 

There is something peculiar but familiar with how they gained their massive political popularity and influence. It is the latest affirmation of a tried and tested strategy of converting mass media mileage into electoral victory. The trend was started by matinee idol Rogelio dela Rosa who won as senator in 1957; but it was Joseph Estrada who became the most successful actor-turned politician after his election as president in 1998. Media personalities would also enter the world of politics such as radio legend Eddie Ilarde who was elected senator in 1972, Loren Legarda in 1998, and Noli de Castro in 2001. Legarda remains a senator while de Castro was voted vice president in 2004.  

The Tulfos made their mark in the traditional media but they rose to prominence in the new media. The internet expanded their reach and audience engagement, online interaction boosted their masa appeal, and they delivered what their listeners so desperately wanted which state apparatuses could not grant: “instant justice”.

This marketing media spin is not original. TV programs like “Hoy Gising” also crowdsourced petty but visible and high-impact social problems and used the power of broadcasting to get the attention and prompt response of authorities. Morning AM radio shows also thrived by encouraging listeners to call and air their views, appeals, and petitions to the government. The most effective radio hosts are those who use their booming voices not just to decry bad governance but also to solve the hardships of ordinary citizens in society, especially those who suffer from injustice inflicted by incompetent and abusive bureaucrats. The Tulfos are from this side of the media industry. 

With due respect to their devoted constituents, the Tulfos are not actually known for trailblazing investigative and advocacy journalism. They succeeded, however, in developing a fan base whose members think that the Tulfos are more accessible than the big media networks. Their news production appeared less intimidating and mimicked the drama and sensational feel of reality shows.  

It is a convoluted version of solution-based journalism that offers rapid resolution of conflicts, scams, scandals, tyrannies, and all unimaginable horrors in our sad Republic. It is like airing our dirty linens in public but normalized in the name of public service. It is weaponizing broadcasting to legitimize public shaming and public trial with the Tulfos acting as judge, jury, and executioner. The listening crowd is entertained and conditioned to believe that justice was done in a matter of minutes minus the hassle and cost of bureaucratic red tape and legal gobbledegook.

In the age of internet streaming, snippets of the Tulfo show are stored, reformatted, distributed, and marketed for online mass consumption sans the vetting for news reporting and decontextualized from its original source as a public broadcasting story. Virality trumps verification in the new media landscape which incentivizes hits, clicks, and soaring audience metrics. 

Nevertheless, this does not adequately explain the political rise of the Tulfos. Even traditional media companies are guilty of peddling false narratives to the public with their stories sorely lacking in depth and nuance but tailored to an audience with diminishing attention spans.  

As media outliers, perhaps the Tulfos are more motivated to promote their style of reporting and aggressively package it as a family brand. They should not be faulted for having an outsized pride in their name but this is not sufficient basis to enter the political arena. 

As the Tulfos strive to bridge the gap between their newfound popularity and credibility, it coincides with the surprise election of Rodrigo Duterte as president. Here was a politician whose wager was that the frustrated and angry voting public would accept the insane rhetoric that social ills could be addressed in three to six months. He went on to dominate electoral politics and his shock and awe antics were replicated by DDS trolls and Duterte wannabes.

Political reform takes time and even politicians can only promise to deliver results that match their terms in office. Duterte is bold enough to falsely and maliciously claim that he can literally kill enough people in a short period of time and herald it as a solution to the country’s problems. He dispensed not just material freebies to supporters but also a set of political rhetoric notorious for its dogmatic simplicity and incitement to violence. 

The Tulfos’ fast justice prescription could only gain credence after Duterte bombarded the public with his inanities and legitimized this as worthy of an electoral tactic. If Duterte can become “His Excellency” by brandishing his “kill, kill, kill” mantra, shouldn’t voters also reward the same title of respectability towards the Tulfos who had been consistent in promoting McJustice in the airwaves?  In other words, Duterte’s politics enabled the rise of the Tulfos to a level that allowed the latter to aspire and eventually grasp power. 

The problem with this type of politics is that it equates the delusions of a crusading politician and family with political empowerment. It weakens collective action for good governance by spreading the illusion that complex social issues can be addressed either by foul language or pitting individuals against each other in a macabre show of public shaming. 

The notion that the Tulfos’ electoral success will be a harbinger of political modernity or progress should be disabused by the disappointing legacy of former media personalities who became elected officials. They who were quick to declare their affinity with the masses to gain votes but were easily co-opted by the system they once chastised as members of the press.

They could not articulate a deeper analysis of what’s happening in society since it entails an admission that they are a symptom of dysfunctional politics. They could propose progressive and even radical reforms but this has to be framed within the restrictions imposed by the conservative social order. They could build a constituency to challenge the Establishment but the perks of power have discouraged them from addressing the roots of the crisis as they fall back on their winning strategy of spoonfeeding the public with magic pills of token solutions.  They could not go beyond what politicians are doing without making a stand that they are ready to reject elite interests in politics. 

The Tulfos have been in the headlines recently for the wrong and embarrassing reasons. Dynasty building, law-breaking, fraud, abuse of power – like politicians, they seem to think that everyone has the duty to follow the law except if it applies to them. 

The rise of the Tulfos emboldens us to develop a better and more effective way to reach the masses for political organizing and electoral politics; but more importantly, to expose the deception and stop it from mutating into another political evil. The problem with the word “Tulfo” is that it is both a noun and verb when it should be an adjective that perfectly describes the shortcomings of politics and the toxic mix of social media influence and Duterte-style politics.