‘Boycott,’ anyone?

If the traditional media is losing its audience, we only have ourselves to blame. It is as much because of our content than it is about technology.

For some time now, I have noticed how the headlines and front pages generally tend to be about on-going feuds between elected officials or the worn-out ICI investigations.

Yesterday, for instance, the “news” was about President Bongbong Marcos saying he will not oppose any attempt to impeach Vice President Sara Duterte. I wonder if the rats will impeach while the “cat is away?”

An even bigger space with photos was dedicated to Sen. Imee Marcos and her “hair pulling feud” with Sen. Ping Lacson, while the ICI was said to be looking for direction.

If it’s not about strong differences of opinion or “pasabog” or mini exposés, politicians dish out self-serving statements about not being part of a scandal, condemning those already exposed, only to be found to have “insertions” and “allocables” that are distasteful if not irregular.

I am reminded of a time when a congressman cried out for support by shouting “Wala na bang iba?” or are there no others willing to stand up for what is right? In like manner, don’t we have better things to write or talk about?

I get it that “bad news travels fast,” disasters attract attention and dog fights and cat fights are hard to turn away from because curiosity makes us want to know who wins and who gets bloodied and who the “New Guilty” are.

But does politics, feuds and ego trip statements really sell? If traditional media’s audience share is shrinking, then the obvious answer is a hard No.

If you go to your kitchen, chances are you will see that many of the packaged foods there have expiry dates. Even your bathroom is full of health and wellness products that also have expiry dates. 

When the food or cosmetics are no longer attractive or beneficial, don’t we go to the grocery or the pharmacy to look for something else? Shouldn’t media leaders place an “expiry date” on politics and feuds as the featured or preferred topic of choice?

Looking back through the years, the politicians have played traditional media to their advantage. Before every election, these politicians and aspiring “would be government appointees” will go out of their way to engage with anybody identifying themselves as media.

Then when they get elected, the roles change, and the media have to chase after the politicians and government officials.

In the last two administrations, I even had the impression that certain government communicators and politicians were “cancelling” or ignoring traditional media and countering with their own online version of the truth.

But now that many legislators and government officials have been found out having insertions and allocations or possible involvement in the scandalous ghost projects, the “i-snoberos” are once again tapping and messaging their hellos and statements.

People familiar with congressional hearings and investigations all know that many legislators attend those events only for their “two minutes of fame.”

That is where the term “two minutes of fame” may have come from, because legislators only get two minutes each to ask questions and they always time it when the media are present or in full force.

Take away media live coverage and those same hearings and investigations will look and sound more like a wake than an inquisition. Only the chairman and key committee members will show up.

Yes, the viewers all love the drama, the grilling, the insults and accusations hurled by “Honorables” and dis-Honorables against each other. But what price is traditional media paying for taking part in these circuses run by politicians or Congress?

First of all, we end up encouraging the dishonest conduct and behavior of politicians putting up a show or a mask of integrity and righteousness. By retelling or airing their feuds we encourage people to do likewise.

But even worse is that when we publicize their political shenanigans, misdirections through so-called acts in aid of legislation, we become party to creating false impressions and unfounded expectations.

The sad truth about all these investigations and congressional hearings, whether done by the Blue Ribbon or the Reds, is that Congress cannot and never has sentenced the guilty with imprisonment.

If anything, many congressional hearings and investigations have probably jeopardized or rendered moot any actual investigation of law enforcement agencies.

The so-called hearings have become a “stay out of jail card” for people who skipped town after the congressional heads up.

Traditional media have been too busy trying to survive and fail to realize that coverage and reporting lends credibility to events, personalities and institutions.

By reporting about them we say they matter, their actions and statements matter and we report it because it has an impact on people’s lives. But is this still correct and accurate, given the kind of politicians or some of the leaders we have?

During the Marcos dictatorship, one of the silent but potent acts of protest was the practice of boycotting products and companies associated with the dictatorship. The action did not “sink the boat” but they certainly called attention.

In an ideal world, traditional media’s role is to report the news. Then it was expanded to explaining the news and then dig into the people behind the news. Perhaps it is time for us to be more discerning and discriminating about who gets into the news.

Boycott who and what are not newsworthy.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]