Media and the nation’s sense of governance

In Pulse Asia’s nationwide survey of November 2002, most Filipinos admitted to having a most difficult year, their quality of life having deteriorated rather than improved. Furthermore, most of them viewed the coming year with much trepidation, anticipating that life would continue to be even more difficult rather than somehow stabilizing or even marginally improving.

This unusual convergence of a sense of hard times without a sufficiently compensating sense of optimism took its toll. Although liberal to a fault in their support for whatever administration might be in power, Filipinos in late 2002 could not hide their disappointment with those tasked with managing the country’s governance. The president, vice-president, senators, congressmen, cabinet members and other government officials showed marked depreciation in public regard, with their public approval levels of half a year ago almost invariably taking a tailspin in the Pulse Asia survey.

Perhaps even more critically, public officials and other prominent figures tested for public trust also suffered an increase in public skepticism between July and November 2002. The president herself failed to gain the confidence of most Filipinos, settling for a problematic 38 percent who continued to trust her in these times of simultaneous crises. Even institutions that normally should have gained the trust of most Filipinos find themselves making do with sub-majority trust levels. The prestigious and politically influential Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines – certainly the nation’s most distinguished congregation of spiritual advisers – was trusted by less than half (48 per cent) of the Pulse Asia survey respondents.

While the national authorities objectively speaking might not have done much between July and November 2002 to warrant higher levels of public approval — ditto for public trust or confidence – the extent of the nation’s overall disaffection with these officials and the institutions they headed still surprised many quarters. After all, as noted earlier, Filipinos have a well-deserved reputation for viewing even virtually empty glasses as being at least half full. In addition, the nation was already well into the Christmas season (jingling bells make the airwaves as early as October and the Pulse Asia survey ran in November). Filipinos normally refuse to go cheerless as they conjure images of serenely snowed, white Christmases and deliciously browned simbang gabi bibingkas. There has to be joy to the world for all ye faithful pinoys! Simply hark! The herald angels do sing and thus all the nation’s crises must be on hold!

What could have neutralized DNA’s programmed for hopefulness as well as that terrific upper which is Christmas, the season to be jolly? What miracle is this which conjoined an oft-recurring loser status and an extraordinarily rare sense of pessimism among Filipinos?

Beyond the superb efforts of the authorities who often suffer from foot in mouth disease or — alternatively – regularly, expertly shoot themselves in the foot, one must look at media. An incredibly faster mediator, media now disseminates objective, projected and perceived realities — and fabricated non-realities as well – virtually at the speed of light so that graphic images and sound bytes are energized instantly, à la Star Trek, for a compulsively tuned-in nation. Economic difficulties, political instabilities, alarming criminality, threatening terrorism, even plentiful inanities by immature personalities – all of these are disseminated regularly and rapidly nationwide by media.

Inconceivably faster media dissemination is bad enough for the country’s plentiful IPAs (insufficiently performing authorities). IPAs and their domestic help have less time to attempt creative interventions that at least curb media reach if they cannot outrightly interdict media messages. Even former media adepts who have chosen to join the IPAs or refuse to leave their normally comfortable lair now find themselves in hyperstressful situations where media damage limitation — interdiction being ruled out of the question – has to be effected with time constraints that are simply impossible to meet. The brazen lie often becomes the preferred, at times possibly the only, recourse and so public trust in former media people who become presidential mouthpieces may now be at the same low as their unfortunate principals’. (This is quite tragic as presidents understandably prefer spokesmen who enjoy much credibility, a reputation for personal integrity which people in media take many years to gain. )

Something else bedevils IPAs even more. Media no longer simply mediates. Much more crucially, it magnifies. Media magnificat may be the most politically distinguishing characteristic of our times. More than any political, social or economic institution, it is media that filters society’s multiple and often contending realities. What media focuses on, what it chooses to project or lend saliency to becomes – for mostly everyone in society – the most probable and thus the controlling reality. That reality is not only projected or disseminated by an incredibly energized and energizing media. It is also magnified, often greatly dramatized – in the most irresponsible cases, sensationalized – for quicker processing by a none-too discriminating and educationally probably still underdeveloped public.

In November 2002, the national sense — the perceptions, opinions, sentiments and attitudes of Filipinos in relation to their country’s governance – owes terribly much to media’s willful intervention. In a democratic society, it is obvious that not only IPAs but even EPAs (excellently performing authorities) must reckon with modern media as a most serious democratic challenge.

After all, like all of society’s primary institutions, media too has its institutional interests. Even when described as necessarily adversarial to the powers that be — a view much favored by many decent people who are mostly liberal and democratic in temperament – those who own, control or for practical purposes are media may not be prudently assumed as inveterate believers in democratic governance.