Radio
and Television as Political Media
When issues are secondary to personalities, the role of radio and television as political media is further strengthened. Thus we see broadcasters, basketball stars and actors winning elective positions. Whether this is good or bad for the country is something else.
By
RUPERTO S. NICDAO JR.
(Editor’s
note: The author is president of the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas,
as well as the Manila Broadcasting Company. This speech was delivered during a
forum on “Media and the May 14 Elections” organized by the Center
for Media Freedom and Responsibility and the Joaquin Roces Foundation in
Makati last May 7, 2001.)
Barely a week ago, droves congregated at Edsa in what some believe to be a unified expression of dissent. As the nation plunged into political turmoil anew, the concerned citizenry tuned in to one radio-television network.
No, it was not one of the more familiar media giants. On the contrary, the tandem was composed of a nondescript TV station buried in the same spectrum as the Indian channels; and a radio station known more for recounting the travails of early-day Christians rather than the trials of modern-day politicians.
As common Filipinos remained glued to their television sets, listening to a patched-in radio commentary, politicians were quick to recognize the opportunity for what it was worth – mileage, mileage, mileage.
It was a battle out there long before the Edsa crowd stormed the gates of Malacanang. Truth to tell, it was a battle from Day One. It was a battle wherein politicians jockeyed for airtime as their opponents sought avenues of action to deprive them of that media exposure.
Arguing
that the rally was as important as the two previous Edsa uprisings and the
impeachment trial, opposition candidates criticized the media giants for the
lack of coverage. The networks retorted, citing the basic tenet of preserving
the safety of man and material and programming prerogative. Administration
officials, on the other hand, vigorously alleged that the sole TV-radio tandem
on the scene should stop the coverage which they perceived as sympathetic to the
overthrow of government.
These
events serve to highlight something we have all known from the start – that
radio and television are powerful political media.
From the grainy silent movies and static-ridden broadcasts of the 1920s
to the crisp clear images and digital audio of the new millennium – indeed,
radio and television have come a long, long way.
Given
the long, ancient history of radio, it is impossible to pinpoint exactly when it
began to be utilized as a political medium.
Hitler was using radio as a propaganda vehicle for his Aryan Kingdom as
early as the ‘30s.
Television,
on the other hand, is a much more recent invention.
It was in the 1960s that television was first used extensively as a
primary campaign medium during the presidential sortie of John F. Kennedy.
Encouraged by the results, politicians all over the world were quick to
pick up on the JFK campaign formula. Discouraged
by what was seen later, no subsequent American president would ever head a
motorcade in Dallas.
Without
a doubt, radio and television will play a key role in communication and
information dissemination during the coming elections for two reasons:
First, because media provides the perfect vehicle for politicians to
expose themselves; and second, because it is the duty of media to inform,
educate, and empower the voting public.
If
you look at the anatomy of a political media campaign, you will find that it is
rather similar to the advertising campaigns of fast moving consumer goods.
Indeed, it is rather unkind to compare Mareng Winnie to Surf, or Miriam
Defensor-Santiago to San Miguel Beer. The
unkind comparison, however, serves only to point out how the lifting of the
political ad ban has allowed candidates to highlight the features, advantages,
and benefits that they can offer. This
message is then strategically delivered to a defined target market.
Two
of the core considerations of any competent marketer are share-of-mind and
share-of-market. A product must own a share of the target market’s
consciousness. Only then can that
product have a fighting chance at cornering a portion of sales in the industry.
Lifting
the political ad ban opens to politicians the traditional tools for marketing
products and services. We believe
that these traditional tools are more cost effective and cost efficient vehicles
in reaching voters. Politicians,
regardless of whether they are incumbent or opposition, leftist or rightist,
traditional or alternative can slug it out for share-of-mind which will
hopefully translate to share-of-votes. The
downside to this, of course, is that any advertisement magnifies only the
positive side of a product. As
such, the fair warning – caveat emptor – buyer beware.
Or in this case, voter beware.
Prior
to the lifting of the ad ban, politicians had to resort to some rather indirect
and non-traditional ways to achieve exposure, methods which are still employed
these says. This type of casual
exposure can be achieved through news releases, and participation in talk shows,
debates, and forums. Another
surefire way to get into the headlines is to pick the hottest issue of the day
and milk it for whatever publicity it can generate.
No issue hot enough? Well,
it does not take an extraordinarily creative politician to create one.
Winning
an election is largely a function of exposure.
It is tempting to limit this phenomenon to Third World countries but then
we take a look at Minnesota and find that it is being governed by World
Wrestling Federation sports-entertainer Jesse “The Body” Ventura.
The Italian parliament counts a female porn star as one of its members.
Unfortunately, my source on this amusing piece of trivia, who recounted
her deviant sexual behavior in graphic detail, cannot even pronounce her name
which has an abundance of letter C’s.
When
issues are secondary to personalities, the role of radio and television as
political media is further strengthened. Broadcaster
Noli de Castro is a household brand name sporting the tagline “Magandang Gabi
Bayan.” And if survey results are
an accurate indicator, Kabayan will soon be saying good morning to a seat in the
Senate.
Senator Robert Jaworski is the first national official to get elected through the vote of a single baranggay – Baranggay Ginebra. No doubt its was fastbreak Freddie (Webb, himself a former basketball star and a TV actor) who first proved that if you can’t sing your way to City Hall or dance your way to Congress, then there is always the option of dribbling your way into the Senate. There is, however, no truth to the rumor that Alaska let go of Johnny Abarrientos to free up some room under the salary cap for Senate re-electionist Juan Flavier.
Here
in the Philippines, the realities are such that some people host noontime
variety shows and most people don’t. Some
people have a weekly sitcom, most people don’t.
In the final analysis, only a select few are constantly seen on TV and
heard on radio, while the vast majority is not.
So,
if the politician is not one of the select few constantly on TV and radio, what
are the options? Marry someone who is. Or
if Joyce Jimenez turns down the marriage proposal, the politician can always put
together his own radio or TV program.
In
fairness, and on a more serious note, I would like to point out that programs
run by politicians are not necessarily campaign wolves in sheep’s clothing.
There are countless such programs that serve as legitimate if not
commendable avenues of public service. In
the same token, not everyone who starts a showbiz career has their sights set on
a government office. Dolphy was
once asked why he would not run for public office.
“Because I might win. And
after I win, then what?” the King of Comedy responded.
All
this, however, does not deviate from the realization that the chances of winning
an election are greatly boosted by constant media exposure.
Beyond
merely providing candidates with a far-reaching platform on which to convince
voters, radio and television also have a sworn duty to inform, educate, and
empower the voting public.
Ten
or 15 years ago, information and education campaigns were uncommon.
Come election time, all we hear on radio and television are candidates
saying “vote for me.” Today, we
see ABS-CBN mounting a similar “Vote for Me” campaign but with a welcome
twist – “Me” refers collectively to the younger generation who pin their
hopes on good governance.
Manila
Broadcasting Company has collaborated with Blue Skies Crackers on the airing of
several infomercials that explain the party-list system, absentee voting, and
other facets of the electoral process. The
Adboard has joined hands with various advertising and media groups to run their
“Bumoto ng Tama” on radio, television and print.
These
efforts spell out a very important reality, most especially in media – that
profit must be tempered with looking after the common good.
We, the educated middle-working class, cannot simply sit along the
sidelines and blame the victory of corrupt, inept politicians on the stupidity
of the Filipino masses.
On
the contrary, these infomercials are a vote of confidence that we in media
believe the Filipino masses are not stupid.
To date, many may remain uninformed, under-informed, or altogether
misinformed. By saturating the
airwaves with the information needed to make an intelligent vote, we will
hopefully have a hand in steering the nation in the direction of choosing better
leaders.
In
the final analysis, radio and television are political media whether an election
looms in the horizon or not. The
ultimate objective of politics is not to win an election but to uplift the
standard of living of Filipinos. This
upliftment calls for more than just periodic doleouts in cash or kind.
True upliftment is emancipation from ignorance and empowerment through
knowledge. For as long as the people in television and radio stand for
the virtues of justice, compassion, honesty, and valor, radio and television
will be always be considered political media with a noble cause.
And you can be sure, this show will go on.