Poorly seasoned praise releases

Hyperbole or unwarranted exaggeration is probably part of many Filipinos’ genetic code. This could be the reason why in some professions like politics and mass journalism – particularly that subfield of the latter called opinion writing – molehills are regularly passed off as mountains and ordinary hills as towering Everests. One might suspect a natural gender bias since politics and journalism are still largely macho country, but one would be wrong here as elsewhere. Focused exaggeration is also the domain of the less than talented actresses, those who count on their minimal assets being creatively restructured to foist illusions of the much-lamented Twin Towers. And there are self-anointed divas who mistake their volume for the intrinsic music of a song.

In academe, there is an unspoken rule that hyperbole must be avoided like the plague. In every academic discipline, teachers incline their students towards disciplined – i.e. clear, logical and critical – thinking as well as the generally conservative expression of whatever has been thought of and thought out, the carefully explored and critically reviewed thought. Academic discourse does not take kindly to the jazzed-up, hyperbolized language normally used in commercial advertising, partisan political writing or the generic "dating" (impact) rather than "nilalaman" (substance) kind of public expression. Predictably, academics are often accused of being hard to understand, even being outrightly boring, but hardly ever are they charged with being precipitate or rushing to judgment.

Every society appears to acknowledge a need for academic people. They are presumed to have some moderating influence on the various interests and passions that often push society into dangerous cleavages and confrontations. Academics are turned to by those needing objective – or, at the very least, acknowledgedly subjective but minimally biased – assessments of anything promising to be controversial. Where others generate inflammatory heat, academics are presumed to supply clarificatory light. The trust reposed in academics is not liberally extended to politicians, journalists, actors, or for that matter – perhaps on account of their highly visible involvement in recent politics – religious personalities.

Academics therefore have a heavier responsibility than other groups in society. When academics speak or when they present presumably academic products to the public, they must not betray the latter’s trust by engaging in careless speech or hyperbolized write-ups. Persisting in this unfortunate conduct, people who claim to be academics or members of an academic institution run the risk of being unmasked as pseudo-academics, craftily preying on the faith of a trusting people and using public trust as a vehicle for whatever might be their self-serving agenda.

Recently, media bannered public opinion findings released by a survey research group (not Pulse Asia, with which this columnist is actively affiliated as one of its research directors). The group’s own media release alludes to curent public satisfaction with President Macapagal-Arroyo as having "bounced up to a record high," improving from a previous 45 percent to a current 53 percent public satisfaction rating and, given the latter figure, the same release notes that the President has attained "an absolute majority for the first time."

This kind of media release purportedly coming from an academic group provoked newspaper write-ups referring to the "soaring" popularity of the President and at least one editorial cartoon (not the Philippine STAR’s) where she is on top a tall tower with a crowd of people way below. The various papers picking up the survey group’s media release made much of the phrases "record high" and "absolute majority," in the process contributing to a misleading sense of how a 53 percent public satisfaction rating makes for a phenomenal amount of public support. Given the times, it is of course good that the President has gained a majority of people satisfied with her performance, but the wording of the media release makes it possible to have a false impression of how extensive and record breaking this support base is.

The fact is that the 53 percent public satisfaction rating is simply a personal high for President Macapagal-Arroyo. The "record high" for Philippine presidents is much higher (80 percent for former President Aquino, with both former Presidents Ramos and Estrada also scoring way above the current 53 percent of President Macapagal-Arroyo) and – if "approval" is equated with "satisfaction" (more on this issue in another column) – worldwide both Bushes, father and son, had scored higher than 80 percent among the Americans and Koizumi had touched 90 percent among the Japanese. (President Macapagal-Arroyo actually already has hit a 63 percent public-approval rating in the earlier Pulse Asia Ulat ng Bayan survey of October, 2001.)

To personalize a "record high" and limit it to a president who has been in office for less than a year does not do this president justice. Academic people must not assume that President Macapagal-Arroyo is not capable of doing as well in public satisfaction as the other Philippine presidents. As a matter of fact, given the circumstances surrounding her rise to the presidency and subsequent events, her current performance has allowed her to gain stature among her constituency. Should her administration be able to effectively show more concern – especially for the less-advantaged in this society and malasakit furthermore be able to ease the entire nation’s transition through currently difficult times, there is no reason why she cannot match the best records of her predecessors. Thus, in speaking of a "record high", an academically written media release would not have limited the record to her less than a year stint as president of this country.

As regards the phrase "absolute majority" which sounds so gloriously impressive in the same media release, it simply means any figure which is more than half of all those included in a full count. If one were dealing in a full population count, say a group of 100 balut vendors, 51 of the 100 balut vendors (51 percent) is an absolute majority. In surveys using samples of the population, the specific sample size cautions academic analysts to take into account sampling errors in reading what might or might not be a majority. Thus, an "absolute majority" would simply mean the survey’s margin of error had been fully considered and still one gets a figure that is at least 51 percent, the slimmest possible majority. The value of having slim or small "absolute" majorities is more psychological and political than anything; it enables the holder of such majorities to announce to other protagonists that s/he has a majority while the rest do not. It is much like saying, "I have the power!" or "The force is with me!" Like He-Man or Sheera or Luke Skywalker, one can feel and properly project that s/he has some moral/political ascendancy over those who cannot make the same claim. (Incidentally the 53 percent satisfaction rating noted in the release is so obviously close to being the slimmest majority and with both sampling and non-sampling errors factored in could easily be less than a majority.)

This kind of fragile "absolute majority" could easily and rapidly dissipate, as happened so dramatically in the case of ousted President Estrada. Academics encountering such chancy majorities should prudently remark on their fragility and how they must be fortified by a public official as much as possible, sooner rather than later. The authorities and the citizenry are better served when academic analysts insist on conservative and cautionary readings, rather than inspirational verbiage. The authorities, in particular, should not to be lulled into feeling all that comfortable with popular support of this "absolute majority" kind.

Those who drumbeat a 53 percent majority support for a president as a "record high" and refer to it as an "absolute majority" without any further explanation court public confusion and facilitate dangerous illusions. People who prepare media releases resulting in these confounding outcomes cannot be mistaken to have firm academic commitments. What they might really have is a penchant for irresponsible dramatization. Others would simply say hype.