A Different Take On Political Ads
June 10th, 2008 at 11:18 pm (Elections 2010, General, National Politics, Writable Writes)
Blogger and poet, Mikael Co, has taken a different point of view regarding political ads:
Natural na proseso ito sa isang market system. E ano kung politiko sila na may hangarin sa 2010? Hindi sila nangampanya; nagsabi sila ng opinyon ukol sa isang produkto, o nagtulak ng isang adbokasya. Malaki raw ang maitutulong ng mga naturang ad sa kanilang kampanya, sa “awareness” ng tao sa mukha at tinig nila. Ano ang mali doon? Ano ang ikinaiba nila sa lahat ng ibang celebrity na nagtutulak ng produkto– na, sa totoo lang, e makakatulong din sa awareness ng publiko sa mga artistang ito, sa “kampanya” para tangkilikin ng tao ang susunod nilang pelikula? O kunwari may isang artista ngayon na maraming ads sa TV– si Piolo, kunwari. Paano kung bigla niyang maisipang tumakbo sa 2010? Unfair advantage din ‘yun, di ba? Iba na ba ang standards na gagamitin natin para sa mga pulitikong lumalabas sa ads, mga pulitikong nababalitang kakandidato sa 2010, balitang media lang din naman ang nagpapakalat? Nasaan ang mali du’n?
Co then elaborates that while some might be using public funds for these ads, he doubts that all of them are. Co also points out that politicians with integrity will not be swayed by the corporate interests of the products they endorsed, and that the real problem is not with the political ads, but with the existing market system. Co also points out that the media, in its coverage of politics and politicians, is not fair and equal. He cites the coverage of the wedding of a senator’s daughter.
I do not necessarily agree with Co’s arguments. I do think that it’s in poor taste for politicians to be product endorsers. And it is in worse taste for politicians to have political ads in the guise of advocacy campaigns. True, there’s nothing illegal about doing such things, and the media is biased and unequal in its coverage. Nonetheless, politicians should be more prudent and discerning when endorsing products or airing ads.
Politicians, especially those who are in power incumbents, already wield an influence over the media, over businesses, over the public, I doubt that they have to broadcast themselves more just so they can get people to know them.
The problem here really, in my opinion, is not that we are fed up with political ads. The problem really is that political ads reinforce the belief, system that values popularity and personalities over issues, opinions, and agenda.
Ours is a political system that is mostly a popularity contest, no point in denying that. The more people know you, the more they hear and remember your name, the better the chance of them voting for you. We have been trying to fight that, but it’s the truth.
Unless these political ads show more meat in terms of advocacy and issues, unless there is sincerity, people will continue to be annoyed by it and criticize it.
Related Posts:- Political Ads
- Political Ads
- Political Ads of Antonio Trillanes
- A Few Days of Peace Left
- Has the Dust Settled?
kael said,
June 11, 2008 at 1:46 am
hi ria, thanks for the link and the quote.
a few points:
1. i did not point out that “the problem is… in the existing market system.” my point is that anyone who might have a problem with these ads should also have a problem with the system. within that system, ads such as these are, as i’ve said in my post, perfectly logical. i don’t see anything essentially wrong with the market system– i don’t see it as evil or whatever.
2. its not that the media is not fair and equal, its just that “newsworthiness” is, well, another necessary byproduct of the market system. it’s a comm problem, this newsworthiness thing. i’m just saying that there’s nothing wrong with a public official exploiting all available avenues to promote his/her advocacies.
3. i totally agree that public officials should exercise prudence and discernment when endorsing products or earning ads. but let’s look at it this way: say, senator L endorses something that turns out to be a sham product. the product doesn’t get sold. the endorser’s ratings go down. see? there’s an internal check and balance here– enough so that any endorser who doesn’t “exercise prudence and discernment” hurts his/her chances in the end.
4. oh yes, ria, the politicians do have to broadcast themselves so people can get to know not just them, but the things they are fighting for. how many times in the past month was the cheaper medicines bill covered in the papers? it was ratified april 29. where was the news coverage? it was signed last friday. a few short stories, with little mention of its principal sponsor. our calls for suspension of the evat on oil? minimum wage tax exemption? consumer protection? the educational reform bill? as they say, “where’s the love?”
5. all elections, are, in essence, a popularity contest. i’m sure obama in the u.s. got his fair share of supporters for his charm and fiery rhetoric. (great speeches, by the way.) the best politicians know how to play this game. the best statesmen know how to intertwine issues and advocacies with charm and rhetoric. sadly, though, change is yet to happen. (i still hope it will, though. there are a lot of us working towards it, believe me.)
6. you say, “Unless these political ads show more meat in terms of advocacy and issues, unless there is sincerity, people will continue to be annoyed by it and criticize it.” again, i totally agree. not every politician, though, has a billion pesos at his disposal. some of them have to piggy-back with products that share their advocacies. sometimes, even, their advocacies run against the interests of some companies (say, the cheaper medicines bill and big time pharmaceuticals) and there are no avenues to make the people aware. i guess that’s a big source of frustration for me.
so there. thanks for blogging about this. rakenrol!
p.s. kumusta ka na nga pala?
JM said,
June 11, 2008 at 5:27 am
Hmmm… na-disturb lang ako sa analogy na ginamit (artista). Product endorsement yun eh, the manufacturers/companies are banking on the presumed credibility of the celebrities which they get from being popular and “respected” individuals. Kumbaga, line of work nila yun eh.
Trabaho ba ng politicians na gamitin ang kanilang “presumed credibility” para mag-endorso ng produkto?
I think we have to put these ads in context eh. I mean, look back in the past and see how these ads have been used to further an election campaign (Mar Roxas and Manny Villar comes to mind). That is why people are annoyed, because they are aware of this dirty tactic already.
anonymous4now said,
July 4, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Ads are ok, because it involves money. if it involves money, it involves revenue, which should be taxed, and thus returned to the people. The advantages are: (1) taxes are earned, and (2)information effectively relayed to the people. This applies to both product endorsements and political ads by politicians. Even if the budget is from the government, that is ok since it will have the following advantages mentioned above. Practically there is no evil in it. (Of course, one might say that taxes were wrongly used; because instead of public benefit, it was “personal” benefit on the part of the politician. Well, so long as that politician still is beneficial to the public, he has every right to do so; provided that he is indeed capable). In the end, when that fleeting moment comes, it is up to the people to believe what they are saying, endorsing, advocating, etc…The people, it seems, is better educated nowadays and are not to be easily “fooled” by these (indispensable) methods.
It seems that it will not be long that we will have lower voter turnouts every three years because of this cold Aristotelian logic:
Politicians use ads or aim for publicity/popularity so that people will vote for them; popularity does not strike todays voters as essential of a politician; people must see something essential in someone for them to vote that someone; thus, people are unable to vote.
And i cannot be excited enough. I really hope that this trend be consistent, and its interesting consequences soon realized.
No voters (or at best, a sudden Boycotting of elections) means this: an interesting spectacle!
I cannot imagine this interesting conversation actually taking place between a politician and a campaign manager:
Campaign Manage: “Sir, it turns out that there were no voters…It means that..”
Politician: “It means WHAT?”..
Campaign Manager: “It should go as it is proclaimed in our constitution..”
Pol: “Eh,…er..What is proclaimed in the constitution, if you don’t mind?”..
Campaign Manager: “…” (thinking of doing something..reaches for his phone to contact his friend who is a law student; he is by training anything but lawyerly; What does the law matter to him?)
Pol : “PAH! Nonsense! How should I explain this to my…”
And you get the idea…
I think that it is now timely that we consider whether or not we should still vote on elections. Not because of the methods used that thus we rebel; not because of such romantic and idealistic sentiments; but for the sake of seeing the (I hope funny) reactions of those who solely rely on such methods - In other words out of pure curiosity. Is it not that curiosity is the essence of liberty?