What’s lacking in our political ads?

TEACHABLE MOMENTS 
By Josemaria Claro 
The Philippine Star 

Viral video of the little girl who was crying because she realized that she has had enough of political advertisements? “Just because I’m tired of Bronco Obama and Mitt Romney,” replied Abigael in between the cutest sobs when asked by her mother what she was crying about.

People are not supposed to vote for candidates based solely on political ads. But let’s face it, with 12 names to choose in that ballot filled with names of devils-we-know and the devils-we-don’t, political ads undeniably play a significant role in our decision-making. Campaign ads are meant to sway people into choosing a candidate via the most effective techniques, for the Filipino audience, that is through celebrity endorsements, catchy jingles, mnemonic devices or constant repetition.

What’s important for us is to be knowledgeable about these ads and make sure they don’t get fooled into voting for a particular candidate on the basis of an effective advertisement.

The most crucial element that’s missing from Philippine political advertisements is a definitive, political stand. By its very nature, politics is meant to divide people as our leaders think and argue over the best way of resolving pertinent issues of our society. Therefore, a campaign ad where a candidate does not present his/her stand on certain issues is purposefully shallow and meant to mislead. That is why it is wise to avoid those candidates who are constantly smiling and deluding us into thinking that they are ultra nice people with the noblest of intentions. Experience tells us these people will soon cause gnashing of teeth once they reveal their positions on certain issues. It should be pointed out that there is nothing wrong with that because the unintended consequence of politics is to displease people by making a stand for the good of the majority.

What have we seen in our political ads? One candidate professes he is for education, another for good governance, still another for environment or eradication of poverty. But every politician is expected to fight for these advocacies! What candidates must express is how they plan to concretize their advocacies by proposing potentially divisive stands and convictions. Will they eradicate poverty by proposing new tax measures? Will they protect the environment by pushing for a total anti-mining government policy? If candidates can clearly give their stand on a certain issue that would inevitably divide public opinion, then these candidates deserve our consideration because they don’t treat us as fools in trying to get our votes by pleasing everybody.

Here’s a great example from Barack Obama’s 2012 political ad:

Your vote is a choice between two different plans for our country. I believe the only way to create an economy built to last is to strengthen the middle class asking the wealthy to pay a little more so that we could pay our debt in a balanced way, so we could afford to invest on education, manufacturing, and home-grown American energy and for good middle-class jobs.

Obama bravely puts his position forward. He aims to correct the economy by taxing rich Americans. These would certainly turn off many businessmen and tycoons, but Obama was being transparent on his plan of action with regard to rebuilding the American economy. He doesn’t hide behind general, vague, warm, fuzzy slogans.

If we continue to be bombarded with shallow political ads, we’ll end up with politicians who have proven to be most marketable due to name recall. Of course, these are the candidates that already come from entrenched political families. Are we watching Ama, Kapatid, Anak? parody twitter account @superstarmarian asks.

That is why it is truly disappointing to know how GMA and other KBP stations have filed legal actions against the Comelec ruling that limits the minutes of political ads. It would seem that TV networks are merely interested in earning revenues even at the cost of having the usual surnames continue dominating the political landscape. Before they fight for expanding airtime limits, why don’t they educate the public first about propaganda techniques? If they’re really advocating information dissemination during elections, why not televise debates and forums on primetime in place of mind-numbing soap operas? If the public sees them investing substantially in voter-education campaigns, then more people would believe that their appeal against the Comelec ruling is sincere and well-intentioned.

“Katotohanang magpapalaya sa bayan,” so goes the slogan of one respectable news media outlet. I do not doubt their vision, but if their shows are sandwiched by the lies conveyed by shallow and misleading political ads, then they will not liberate the nation. The truths they profess to broadcast will become diluted and they will have become part of the cancer that is traditional Philippine politics.