Bu-lat-lat (boo-lat-lat) verb: to search, probe, investigate, inquire; to unearth facts Vol. IV, No. 29 August 22 - 28, 2004 Quezon City, Philippines |
Analysis Media’s
Role in the 2004 Elections: Mass
media play a major role in not just informing audiences but also in
motivating them toward certain courses of action. Journalism, after all,
has ceased to limit itself to filling in the 5 Ws and 1 H (i.e., Who,
What, When, Where, Why and How). More important, it must also answer
questions like “So What?” and “What Now?” This is a condensed
version of the author’s presentation on August 24 at the University of
the Philippines College of Mass Communication (UP CMC). By
DANILO ARAÑA ARAO Journalists
indeed live in dangerous times as 55 of them have been killed since 1986 -
six of them in 2004 alone. The perceived societal indifference on the
plight of journalists may be rooted in the way mass media are viewed by
various audiences. For the longest time, mass media has been accused of
being irresponsible, abusive and unable to provide information that they
need. The
coverage of the 2004 national and local elections proves to be no
exception. As in past elections, the people were inundated with
name-calling and muckraking, and - in the tradition of telenovelas that
have gained significant following among most TV viewers - got a preview of
the personal lives of candidates. There were stories about an estranged
wife and a long-lost son, as well as romance that reportedly developed in
the campaign trail between a senatorial candidate and a broadcast
journalist. Much
like a popular telenovela, the audiences anticipated developments of such
stories with bated breath. That is not to say that mass media reneged on
its responsibility to analyze social issues and concerns during the
campaign period. There were efforts to do so, but it is important to
analyze whether such initiatives were enough. While
mass media assuaged the people’s hunger for information, the question
remains as to what kind of information had been provided and if the ones
that matter had been enough to give the people an informed choice on
election day. Media
as main sources in the 2004 elections
Based
on the Pulse Asia survey conducted from March 27 to April 4, 2004, 95
percent of registered voters nationwide relied on television, radio and
newspapers for information and news about the candidates and the electoral
campaign. Among
the forms of mass media, television was mostly used as primary source by
71 percent of respondents. Radio was a distant second with 20 percent and
newspaper was third with only 4 percent. Other primary sources cited were
friends/relatives (3 percent) and posters and other campaign materials (1
percent). The
data validate the superiority of television and the ubiquity of radio. The
current status of television explains why candidates tend to hire
celebrities to prop up their campaigns and even package themselves as
celebrity look-alikes. The
distinct advantage of media practitioners and celebrities running for
public office also cannot be denied. In the National Capital Region (NCR),
data from Commission on Elections (Comelec) revealed that out of 52
celebrities who ran for mayor, vice mayor, councilor and congressional
representative, 20 of them (or 39 percent) won. While
the reach of newspapers is limited, their influence on public opinion can
still be felt. In 1998, a survey by the Social Weather Stations (SWS)
showed that among the three most frequently read broadsheets, “44
percent of the respondents gave the Philippine Daily Inquirer a
ranking of 1, followed by Manila Bulletin and Philippine Star
which were ranked first by 42 percent and 14 percent of the respondents,
respectively.” The
big newspapers’ wielding of power and influence is the same as broadcast
media’s where those in need of media coverage - in this case, the
national and local candidates - prefer to approach network giants ABS-CBN
2 and GMA 7. Compared to other stations, their news and public affairs
programs do not need to go out of their way to interview “hot copies”
and normally enjoy the privilege of being wooed by lobbyists from
government and cause-oriented groups. It does not come as a surprise that
these stations also benefited from demands for political advertising space
during the campaign period. Data
from the Nielsen Media Research showed four candidates for president and
seven candidates for senator allocating 86 percent to 100 percent of their
total TV political ad spending to ABS-CBN 2 and GMA 7. President
Macapagal-Arroyo who eventually won the presidency was “the top spender
among the presidential candidates, with P53.82 million spent for her 229
ad spots.” Sen. Mar Roxas who topped the senatorial race was the number
one spender among other candidates because his “382 ads released from
February 10 to March 20 cost P40.30 million.” Indeed,
that mass media were instrumental in the winning of candidates may be more
effectively appreciated in the context not just of news stories but also
of the ad spots that were bought by the candidates and political parties. Mass
media’s credibility
Among
the mass media, Pulse Asia said that 67 percent of its respondents in a
survey conducted from March 27 to April 4, 2004 found television to be the
most credible source of information and news about the candidates and the
election campaign. Only 20 percent and 5 percent of respondents chose
radio and newspaper, respectively, as most credible. Interestingly,
a Pulse Asia survey on media credibility conducted from Dec. 9 to 20, 1999
showed that 53 percent of respondents at that time thought television to
be “more often credible.” For radio and newspaper, the figures were 35
percent and 27 percent, respectively. While
television’s credibility increased by 14 percent in 2004, the
credibility of radio and newspaper had a substantial decline. Compared
to the other traditional media, television is relatively new since this
particular medium’s actual broadcast happened in 1953. The latter was,
incidentally, an election year when then “President Elpidio Quirino was
up for reelection.” On the other hand, the beginnings of Philippine
radio were traced to the “very early 1930s” while the country’s
first newspaper, Del Superior Gobierno, was published in 1811. The
older media tend to suffer in terms of credibility as newer ones emerge.
If and when new media becomes more accessible and affordable to Filipinos,
one might see the situation where it will, in due time, become more
credible than television. Assessing
the role of mass media
Various
media analysts stress that the primary role of mass media during an
election is to inform the public about what the issues are and what the
candidates stand for. Mass media, it was stressed, can also be a forum for
the exchange of ideas among the electorate, as well as between the
electorate and the political candidates…Mass media can (also) be the
guardian of integrity of the elections. The
important role of mass media in the elections prompted concerned groups
and individuals to monitor election coverage. The Elections: Citizens
Media Monitor project - a monitoring led by the Center for Media Freedom
and Responsibility (CMFR) of the front page of three newspapers and six
television news programs during the campaign period - showed that
notwithstanding “some significant efforts by media to improve reports,
the press ignored critical election-related areas, such as elections on
the party-list, local and senate levels. Development and policy issues
were largely unreported by the press. Sensationalism persisted,
particularly in (television) broadcasting.” On
a positive note, “the study also found that the candidates for
president, including disqualified bet Eddie Gil, were all given fair media
access. It did not find any organizational bias from the newspapers and TV
programs monitored.” The
editors and news managers - touted the gatekeepers of mass media -
interviewed by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ)
stressed that there were not enough discussions on issues and platforms
for the following reasons:
These
views show that passive coverage was evident during the election campaign.
Mass media lacked the resourcefulness to elicit responses from their
sources. While a journalist may fail to have answers after so many
creative ways of trying to get them, it becomes his or her duty as a media
practitioner “to expose the failure of that particular candidate to
answer. This will reflect on how much effort (a journalist) put in to ask
that question. But so far, that has not been the case.” Conclusion
as contextualization
Mass
media play a major role in not just informing audiences but also in
motivating them toward certain courses of action. Journalism, after all,
has ceased to limit itself to answering the basic 5 Ws and 1 H (i.e., Who,
What, When, Where, Why and How). At present, at least in theory, it should
also answer questions like “So What?” and “What Now?” In
a Third World society characterized by, among others, the polarization of
social forces, mass media should provide an accurate depiction of the
national situation. The nature of mass media makes it, of course,
impossible to mirror social reality since only aspects of it can be
reported at a given time. The challenge as to what part of reality to
report rests of journalists and the gatekeepers (i.e., editors) and if the
election coverage were any indication, a major criterion in reportage is
what will “sell” the publication or program. Just
like the 2004 elections which were determined mainly by “money
politics,” the operations of mass media depended on increased audiences
which would eventually result in increased advertisements, ergo more
revenues for the media organization. The
practice of the media profession is obviously not about revenues, which
explains why progressive academicians and journalists prefer not to use
the term “industry” in describing mass media. After all, the word
denotes “a specific type of manufacturing, business; any of various
large-scale money-making activities.” (The New Lexicon Webster’s
Dictionary of the English Language 1990: 495) Being
a journalist is not just a career since it is a commitment to the truth as
can be gleaned from the facts. The tendency of a journalist to just breeze
through becomes counter-productive especially if he or she refuses to
tackle the issues that matter to the people. It
is easy to propose measures that will improve the journalist’s writing
and analytical skills, but if the media organization gets preoccupied with
revenue generation instead of encouraging journalists to pursue good
leads, the audience will continue to be short-changed in terms of
information that they need. It is necessary for media organizations to
take risks. After all, it is inherent in its role to do so. The
failure of mass media to set the agenda in the 2004 elections may be
rooted in the profit orientation of corporate/mainstream media. Except for
government television - whose agenda the Philippine Center for
Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) bared was defined by Malacañang - there
is no evidence of owners pressuring their media organizations to favor
certain candidates. Nevertheless,
profit orientation still directly affects the content of reportage since
the choice of what to publish or air all boils down to what sells or
rates. Based on the conduct of media reportage of the 2004 elections, the
mainstream media agencies refused to take a risk in discussing issues and
concerns which were dismissed as boring and uninteresting to the
audiences. If there is one lesson that can be learned from the coverage of the 2004 elections, it is the need to analyze the profit orientation of corporate/mainstream media. Indeed, it is unfortunate that the commitment to the truth remains an empty promise as “service to the people” is defined along the lines of how media agencies can profit from it. Bulatlat We want to know what you think of this article.
|
|