The Dereliction of Local Media Propagandists and their Political Patrons

It’s election season once again so the local political propagandists are very much alive over the radio, social media groups, and pages hurling accusations of everything at each other's bosses. Or among the media practitioners themselves.

It is also when radio programs sponsored or paid by politicians mushroom all over the local radio stations in the province.

I assume that the only ones who are intensely and "intelligently" following such radio programs and stations are composed of partisan "hardliners," few "politically- interested," or their close-in supporters. But the rest are and thousands who want "cheap entertainment", a comic relief amid left and right problems in our middle. This situation makes us limp in hardships as people sprint towards our shared dream of political maturity. Is there hope to this current local media situation from this unfortunate social reality?

How could our local politicians in their respective ways, rightly empower the people through the radio and social media if their paid broadcasters or social media propagandists/influencers fail to convey public information and communication that would present the general interest of the masses and the general public? If they could only offer the same old issues and concerns and communication approaches, techniques, and methods? If they allow them to retort to ad hominem and other fallacies or witless questions or comments?

Propagandists and commentators of such kind become senseless as far as educating the public is concerned. They become extraneous due to a poor selection of stories and items to be presented on air or social media. Most of the topics that they like to discuss can right away be predicted in each episode: from irritating praises for their (political) patron /patroness to personal attacks against their rival to their fellow broadcasters.

The pressing concerns and burning issues that the general public or most people wanted to know or ought to be informed of are not adequately elaborated and discussed. The data-based economic situation of the province, for instance, our innovative response to the pandemic, in-depth analysis on our marginalized sector, to name just a few. Ours is propaganda and communication based on personal attack or utter mudslinging tolerated by their respective politician patrons.

Not to mention other political stunts that these self-acclaimed media people chronically use. They employed propagandists while what the public needs are communicators. But before we go further, let us first distinguish "communication" from "propaganda." Communications aims to empower the audience by giving them information that they can weigh and be acted on at once. On the other hand, propaganda seeks to influence, often subvert, the thinking of that audience.

In short, "communication" here deals with the two-way process of sending messages and getting feedbacks, while "propaganda" is persuasive talking (or writing or social media posting). Conversely, politicians usually communicate in press conferences and interviews, while propaganda is what they talked about on stage during political rallies and other campaign sorties.

Thus, it is annoying, if not disastrous, to put the communicator and the propagandist (who is also an aspiring politician or has his or her political agenda) running a radio talk show like what we hear in most programs (and stations) nowadays. More so, if the hosts are in a dilemma whether if s/he going to be a communicator or a propagandist. If the patron politicians do not give a heck about this essential and objective aspect of the trade, they are putting the risk of being branded as “trapo”.

In short, the patron-politician needs to separate these two tasks and delineate these two functions. In not doing so, we are forever doomed to political immaturity manifested by our either fanaticism or unusual turncoat-ism. As unusual as a venom transferring from one aging cobra to another.

This situation manifests especially if the anchors or hosts have two different or opposing intellectual standpoints on issues other than their partisan political views, due to their different experiences before they jumped into the job, much more great differences in beliefs and ideology. Anyway, education is a lifelong process.

But it would be good if they adjusted themselves to such reality in a gradual manner, but it's not an assurance that their listeners who are privy to their backgrounds would easily understand that. The people will just be confused between "developmental" and plain image-boosting, the kind that utilizes persuasion towards a desired political gain. Especially if they have political ambitions (or in reality their ambition to make money out of their candidacy!).

The communicator and the propagandist work hand-in-hand towards a common goal. Their loyalty to their patron-principal is ideally second only to their commitment to God and country, truth, and citizenry. Though these things cannot feed them or can't be eaten.

My second observation deals with their means of presentation. Both political camps are confined only to political talk shows or public affairs programs without considering that most listeners are already tired of talks about politics (or hearing politicians talking).

All of their paid or sponsored programs only employ such overused broadcast type and format. I must agree that there's nothing wrong with the talk show, but why not toy with the idea of trying new approaches? In our modern world, stereotyping and complacency are considered mortal sins. To many, talk shows, no matter how light when presented to everyday people, are overly intellectual or political, thus annoying, boring, and disinteresting.

Another way of making the talk shows more interesting is to bring them to public places where the setting is similar to a press conference and hold it with a live audience or through teleconferencing where they could participate live. By so doing, we already have a captive audience of our own. We must also conduct research or survey on what topics are closest to people's hearts and minds regarding immediacy and relevance. Do not just impose issues or be covertly selective. We get our topics from the non-aligned listeners and not just from our avid supporters or party members.

We may call it also from events unfolding right at our very eyes. Presenting a sincere and balanced news selection is what the people ask, even from a politically partisan broadcast practitioner. Every broadcaster of whatever political line is duty-bound to present factual reports as informative and formative as possible.

If the just reinvigorated or reincarnated media war or war between local broadcasters is inevitable, might as well humanize it. Allow me to conclude by saying that we can humanize this media war by way of these simple steps (that I guarantee you are very familiar with).

First, putting into ethical action standards already in the KBP Code of Ethics must be strictly imposed by its member stations. Secondly, by learning not only from our patrons-principal but even perhaps from their (and our) mortal enemies and remembering that in this world, much with politics, nothing is permanent, and no one is indispensable.

 A good communicator or propagandist needs brain than voice, unequaled wit than brute arrogance, credibility than ability. Without those traits, we can easily fall prey to the narcissism of our patron-principal. We would be like cabbage that what we saw on the outside is what we also see on the inside or in its totality.

A principled communicator or propagandist need not bootlick their patron-principal redundantly and wantonly in the entire duration of his program or comments in a discussion thread. Without noticing it, we, in the process, are giving away our own identity, principles, and whole self. On the other hand, our being propagandists or communicators is not a license on going overboard.

We should constantly be reminded of our limitations and to remember that ours is a distinct realm and be aware that our work is a little apart from our principal's governance and administrative functions. As free and unique individuals, we all have the right to show a little discomfort whenever our patron-principal does something detrimental to the dignity of others by, say, being folksy whatever remarks or gesture of objectivity and levelheadedness, if not moral uprightness. This is to make them feel that we have principles of our own, and it's up to us how to make our patrons-principal understand us.

We may be paid propagandists and communicators, but we must remain human beings and not worthless puppets. With regards to our enemy, ignoring them more often is still our best option. Shoot the message and completely ignore the messenger. Beyond this is stooping down to their level and, if I may add, is allowing ourselves to be treated as mere puppets.

In addition, rude remarks and bullying in whatever form is intolerable regardless of where it came from and whoever uttered those. As I am mentioning time and again, arrogance usually defeats the purpose of awareness-raising propaganda and genuine communication. Arrogance contributes nothing in this particular learning process, in the holistic development of man, and in keeping his dignity intact, no matter how flea-like that man is.

Somehow, it would jeopardize all the good things we are doing and bound to do, especially if our bullying and arrogance became habitual. That even the Revised Penal Code and Jesus' teachings will find inutile.  

Even the bravest knight cannot morally defend an arrogant king (or queen) unless the former conspires with the latter for mutual gain or in exchange for privileges or favor. In this sense, the communicator and/or the propagandist became slaves to their earthly lord (i.e., politician boss) and Opportunism and its evils.

As communicators or propagandists, we are tasked to say what we like so long as we are forbearing. So, again, avoid anything that would be vulgar, and try to remain essentially sincere to all our audience or listeners and fellow media practitioners, whether they come from our side or elsewhere.

Doing political propaganda is not a free-for-all thing. Not all things are allowable in doing political propaganda because showing your fairness and kindness toward your “rivals”, fleshing out decency and rationality are also political propaganda themselves. This would boil down to the advantage of our principal, the ones we are currently supporting.

The local media industry is at its best when it adores no “sacred cows”, it bows to no “superior humans”, it is blind to the “glitter of gold” and deaf to the “sound of silver”, to paraphrase the late Bishop Oscar V. Cruz, my primary source of social communication beliefs.

------

(Photo: Philip Saligumba)