February 9, 2006 · Posted in: In the News, Media
Wowowee: Television and the perils of peddling dreams
TONIGHT I spoke at the induction of the new officers of the Association of Accredited Advertising Agencies or 4As. Some of the country’s top ad executives were there. I talked about the frustrations of journalists like myself with network programming. To my surprise, many of them agreed with me.
This is what I said:
Perhaps it is fortuitous that I should be here before you tonight, five days after the tragedy at Ultra, a tragedy that has generated a lot of soul-searching in the sector to which I belong, the mass media. Like many of you here, I have followed the tragedy on television — the same medium, ironically enough, that brought more than 40,000 people to a sports stadium in the hope of being entertained and of becoming instant millionaires. Their hopes, as we all know, were crushed that day. Seventy-four died in a stampede on Saturday morning — all but three of them, women; most of them, elderly. The tragedy was heartbreaking. It was senseless. But it was also waiting to happen.
I will not go into the details of what went wrong and who was immediately responsible. The authorities are already doing that. What I’d like to talk about is how and why something like this could happen and how this relates to the state of our media, the problems of our society and the governance of our nation, the topic which I had been asked to address tonight. What made the “Wowowee” disaster possible? And how does “Wowowee” connect to the other ills that plague our country?
No doubt, as many commentators have said in the last few days, underlying it all is poverty — the misery and despair that haunt the poor every day, whether or not disaster strikes. One of the greatest failings of our democracy has been its failure to address mass poverty. That failure was demonstrated vividly, tragically, at Ultra last Saturday.
The timing couldn’t be more sobering — the tragedy took place three weeks before we celebrate the 20th anniversary of People Power. The sad reality is this: Since Marcos fell in 1986, poverty levels have remained pretty much the same — about 30 to 40 percent of our population. The absolute numbers, however, have risen as our population has about doubled since then. And for the most part, the poor have remained poor, regardless of whether it is Marcos, Cory, Ramos, Erap or Gloria who sits in Malacañang.
While democracy may have failed the poor, it was a blessing for the media. The mass media were one of the greatest beneficiaries of Edsa. The removal of constraints on both media content and media ownership that democracy made possible allowed media companies, especially those in television, to grow phenomenally and to do something never before possible — reach an audience in nearly every barrio, every hill and coast on this archipelago. Because of democracy, the media have never been as powerful or as rich as they are now.
This is particularly true of television. The emergence of TV as a truly mass medium is one of the great changes that took place after 1986. Today, as you know, nearly 90 percent of all households have access to a TV set. Since the 1990s, television has replaced radio as the dominant mass medium. In poor households, the TV is on as long as 16 to 18 hours a day. It seems families spend more time watching TV than doing anything else together, or doing anything else, period. The TV viewing hours are also probably longest in the poorest households, if only because the poor cannot afford other forms of entertainment, whether it is watching movies or DVDs, or going out malling.
Television, because of its reach, has also become the most efficient medium for selling products. As all of you in this room know, nothing beats TV in terms of eyeballs. It is for this reason that it gets a whopping 75 percent of all advertising revenues. Last weekend, at the annual Media Nation Summit, AC Nielsen told us that advertising billings last year totaled P113 billion, a tenth of our national budget. While we were told that these figures were based on published ad rates, the amount is still staggering and makes television one of the most profitable sectors of the economy.
I don’t have to tell you that the competition in television is so intense that it was considered a major feat for Media Nation to get the top executives of the top two networks together in one room to talk. The competition is most acute in the entertainment programs, particularly those aired during the noontime and primetime hours. Networks invest time, money, talent so they could produce the programs that will get the eyeballs to their channels during those peak hours. The eyeballs, after all, translate into ratings and ratings translate into advertising money.
At the Media Nation conference, we were told that advertisers want efficiency. The emergence of ever more efficient accurate ways to determine what viewers actually watch has made the measurement of TV ratings an ever more precise, although by no means infallible, science. With ratings as a tool, advertisers can get more bang for their buck, so to speak. In fact, AC Nielsen told us that TV ad revenues were growing at about 20 to 30 percent every year. It said that the channeling of so much money to television was a consequence partly of the emergence of more sophisticated technology to measure ratings. With ratings as their guide, advertisers can tell which programs can best sell their products — whether it is shampoo, corned beef or cellphone services.
In the end, therefore, TV network executives shape their programming so advertisers can sell their products more efficiently. The needs of advertisers to sell products and of TV networks to get the ratings so they could get the ads feed on each other. They are mutually reinforcing. And we all know the consequences: Market efficiency seldom translates to quality programming. The result of the race for ratings are programs like “Wowowee,” which are marketed relentlessly to an audience of mostly poor people. Shows like these offer a way out of poverty through the magic, the razzmatazz of television. Never mind hard work or social reforms. The key lies in the luck in the draw, the promise of salvation provided by a celebrity entertainer. Is it any wonder that the following of TV programs like “Wowowee” resembles that of a messianic cult? And isn’t Willlie Revillame some sort of messiah of the idiot box?
It cannot be said that the networks are clueless about the power of television, although they may not have fathomed the depths of people’s desperation. Free TV reaches out to the 80 percent of Filipino households who comprise the D and E, the poorest social strata. These households make up the bulk of the Filipino consumers and advertisers understandably want their attention. True, the Filipinos in this strata — or any other social class, for that matter — can be undisciplined and unmanageable. But network television also cannot be completely oblivious to the perils of peddling dreams to the multitudes who lead brutish lives and would therefore cling — stubbornly, impervious to the well-being of others — to the most tenuous of hopes offered by games of chance.
The reality that the networks seem not to see is that that the range of programming on primetime TV, which is watched by millions of poor Filipinos, does not suffice. The range of programs is very narrow, consisting of game shows, telenovelas, fantaseryes, gag shows and reality programs. While some of these are very good and provide quality entertainment, the truth is that most of them are produced for no other reason that that they will rate. There are almost no programs on prime time television that provide for values formation, education, information, much less empowerment. Thus, the viewers are stuck in the “Wowowee” and “Big Brother” mode. Television provides them escape without also providing them the tools to navigate in a harsh and complex world.
Many of the most cynical responses that came in the aftermath of the “Wowowee” tragedy, like those about TV treating people like they were throwing meat to a pack of wolves, may be undeserved. But the cynicism in general is fed by the popular perception of television as being interested primarily in ratings and profits than anything else.
During the Media Nation summit, we saw that even those working for TV themselves are not exactly happy about the state of the industry in which they labor. Indeed, the Ultra disaster has made them articulate their own questions of how complicit TV has been in perpetuating a state of affairs that is far from satisfactory, far from just, but very profitable for television.
I quote from a comment to a blog made by a TV journalist:
“It’s like this,” he writes, “the poorer people get, the less they can afford to watch movies, eat out, and do other things that require more than a few pesos. But it doesn’t cost anything to sit in front of a TV and watch grandiose escapist productions. Economic stagnation thus tends to enlarge audience share for anything free. Larger audiences mean higher ratings, which are translated into higher ad rates and revenues. And it seems no matter how hard up the Pinoy gets, he will still buy shampoo that is advertised ubiquitously. It may not be in free TV’s best interest if everyone suddenly attained a decent standard of living, because that would come with options like cable, web surfing, and paid entertainment.”
In a private email, this same journalist, whose professionalism and talent I have great respect for, wrote to me to say: “The TV industry is not monolithic. Journalists, like those who attended Media Nation, are engaged in an uphill struggle against the entertainment gods who wave glowing spreadsheets and Nielsen ratings in our faces.”
I realize that this may be the wrong audience and the wrong occasion to say these things. I am sure many of you were fervently wishing, we should have gotten Manny Pacquiao to speak instead. But this TV journalist friend of mine told me that I should take advantage of this opportunity because it may never come again. You will not invite me again after this, but forgive me for abusing your hospitality to articulate the frustrations and the agonies of people like this journalist, people like myself, who have labored long and hard in the fields of journalism, but who find our efforts continuously snowed under by how powerful and rich the entertainment side of media has become.
I am not saying that Philippine television should be like the BBC or that TV fare should be so elevated that it is beyond the reach of the masses, or so serious that it bores all of us to tears. I am saying that free TV should offer a more varied fare — there is room for fantasy and escapism, but there should be room as well, especially on prime time, for intelligent entertainment and public affairs programming that helps explain to people why they are poor and what they can realistically do about poverty and the other problems of the country. There should be ample room in television for programs that relate to their audiences not just as consumers of the products peddled by advertisers but as citizens who need to be informed and enlightened.
Democracy and good governance depend on an informed citizenry. Democracy will work only if citizens are aware of the issues they have to confront. They can vote wisely only if informed of the quality of the candidates and the parties standing for office. Television is the most powerful information medium in the country today. If it fails, our democracy fails as well. It is therefore our collective duty to make sure that television does its job. We often forget that TV networks use air waves that belong to the public and should therefore not be run like any other business. Their public character imbues them with responsibilities other than making money for their shareholders. We have to constantly remind the TV gods of this, and I assure you that there are enough people employed by the networks who are dying for the chance to make good television.
Advertising is a powerful medium. And while its main goal is to sell products, it cannot be oblivious to the greater state of the nation. Whether we acknowledge it or not, the mass media, advertising included, are not just a business. They are the most powerful communication and educational tools in the country today. The media’s influence and their prestige dwarf that of other institutions, whether it is the Church, the schools, or even government. Schoolchildren may find it difficult to memorize the “Panatang Makabayan” but they can all sing the “Pinoy Big Brother” song and mimic Ricky Reyes in the shampoo ad.
All of us in the media, advertising included, wield such immense power. We cannot shirk the responsibility to use that power well. Otherwise, we will only, all of us, sink lower. The rabid competition for ratings that exists today will lead us nowhere but down. I do not see how the ratings war, the way it is fought now, will raise the bar of programming. We have to think out of the box, think perhaps beyond ratings.
After all, the risk of using parameters other than ratings is not oblivion or bankruptcy, it only means making less money. Even if both the advertisers and the networks pay less heed to ratings, they will still survive, they will all make money still — perhaps not as much as they do now — but they will. I know that I should be addressing this message to the network gods, but then I also know they will listen to you more than they will to me.
I have been told that in the past, advertisers shunned programs that rated well but which they found distasteful, like Channel 7’s “Out,” which ridiculed gay men and women didn’t want their products associated with, like Channel 7’s “Out,” a program on gay men and women. The advertisers have also put their foot down on other issues of taste and sensibility, thereby reining in the abuses of some of high-rating programs. I am aware of the many good efforts many of you have undertaken to use the power of advertising for the social good. We need more efforts like these. We all need to work harder to bring about better programming, better television — television that provides more than escape, television that enriches, enlightens and empowers.
Thanks to “Wowowee.” this is a time for soul searching. The moment may not come again. We don’t have to wait for the next tragedy to grapple with hard questions of where we are headed as media professionals, as an industry, as a nation.
We live in this same beloved but benighted country, the same flawed democracy. As individuals and as industries, we have interests to promote, but in the end, we share one nation, one fate.
Good evening to all of you.
36 Responses to Wowowee: Television and the perils of peddling dreams
BY JOVE! » THIS NATION’S MEDIA
February 10th, 2006 at 2:05 am
[…] But, as usual — this highly respected group contextualized the issue better. […]
floyd
February 10th, 2006 at 4:11 am
intolerable
“Anonymous said…
you’re a monster
(by the way, correct your english before you try to sound academic)”
this was written in my comments box after the essay “the people in wowowee tragedy deserves to die…”
i wasnt surprised with the reaction. rather i was expecting it. at fist glance anybody could say how heartless i really am in choosing my words.
it was as if from the words of my friend “they earned their deaths”.
but if you read thoroughly you would see what im really getting at.
the point here ladies and gentlemen is not to blame.
ex:
1. stampede! = blame Willie
2. stampede! = blame ABS CBN
3. stampede! = blame Pasig
and so on and so forth.
people lets wake up.
lets face reality first before we blame.
instead of blaming let us ask ourselves;
“what is reality in the eyes of the people who died?”
without further ado i recognize three realities for them. (and ill try my best to be objective)
1. reality for them is poverty.
2. reality for them is wowowee.
3. reality for them is willie.
now think about this the reasons for such realities realized by these people are simple.
1. they were conditioned (see the term from a psychology book please) to think and feel as such by the government.
2. they were acculturated (see encyclopedia) by their society.
3. they were educated (see DECS literacy statistics) by their environment.
so now we deduce the three specified reasons.
what does the government make them think and feel?
-being in a state of utmost corruption. the government NEVER relinquished any effort to ameliorate their lifestyle in so as much as the government even DENIES them the propensity to earn and have a stable economy by prioritizing foreign industries. (see globalization) thus in such a state of utter helplessness and dependence from foreign investors results to a position of their economy to almost inhumane conditions. acknowledging such they resort to crime, drug use and smuggling in order for them to survive. all of which are against the law, which they themselves dont understand ergo an un-empowered citizenry.
what does society acculturate them with?
-media is equated with society. what the people see on TV is how they see themselves therefore it follows that media played an important role in shaping the peoples minds. but of course media already understood the condition of the people but they needed the market to earn profits because media initially exists as a business enterprise where advertisers could peddle their wares without ever walking to the door of a buyer. as such the media became a tool for acculturation towards a “consumer driven” society and never as a means to better the lives of the people. in effect it became a mental cap to all possible venue for psychological emancipation characteristic of critical thinking and social responsibility.
what does the environment educate them with?
-this is the saddest part so far. education has never been the strongest point of our nation. in fact year after year the number of children dropping out of school or either havent gone to one have risen to “epidemic” proportions. so let us ask what does our people really learn from school? but granting that they havent even stepped on one what does society offer them for education? what do they learn from it? though it could be surmised that the answer for the specific inquiry may range differently as contrasted to the inter-island structure of our country, nonetheless it is safe to assume that we as a people learn accordingly to how much we eat each day. there is no safe distance between the brain and the stomach. it is also true to that of the heart. for whoever feeds you, there is where your heart is. therefore in the final analysis their environment educates them with hunger and the insecurity thats tied with it.
people say that they never want to die in fact they only went there to fulfill their happiness.
they say that the truth is they didnt know that they are going to die. if they had known then they wouldnt have gone to the show. if they had known then they wouldnt have gone waiting for days.
but did they have a choice? given the three realities stated above?
by stating that it was an accident then we insult them more by saying so because they’ve been lining up for days.
by stating that they didnt know would further show them disrespect.
the truth is they knew. but they cannot let go of the opportunity to win that one million pesos.
they didnt care if they push or if they stayed there or pee in their pants so that nobody would take their place.
the truth is they knew that if they push somebody someone would get hurt.
they knew that if they stayed in front they would get crushed from the back.
they knew that they werent treated right by the organizers.
they knew that they werent given a proper venue or a better state of security.
they knew that they have to be there for the chance to win. and thats all that matters to them.
that is how we are as a people. we knew how decrepit our situation is, still we dont do anything to better our condition because of our selfish interests.
we knew that we were in front and were already facing the lions mouth still we move on.
that is how we live. that is how we make a living.
and the saddest thing about this is no matter how many more people die, we will never realize this because we are always fast to blame anyone. its like killing a single cockroach yet letting live the nest underneath your bed.
therefore the people in the wowowee tragedy deserves to die, only if we will be able to realize our own deficiencies.
or else they dont but remain a nameless headcount for the embalmer.
then their deaths would be meaningless.
a talk with my friend clarified these more.
i asked her why do you think Rizal died for the country while in fact he couldve escaped narrowly from the beggining? or why do you think he didnt let the lamp explode in his novel el fili if he knew that the heads of the state would continue to rule badly?
it is because for one rizal deserves to die if only to make his people realize their own sickness that even no matter how perfect they think he is his people (intelligensia) are the sole source of their disease.
it is because for one the explosion of the lamp would all be in vain because the people still depends on the heads of the state and would even take their place if the opportunity comes.
all in all it is because we have yet to die and accept our own sickness and strive to better our nation.
but rizal never deserved to die for himself as the same for the victims of the tragedy.
yet it had to happen so as to realize that WE DESERVE THEIR DEATHS.
so for now lets offer a silent prayer, and hope that this experience never repeats itself.
arkangel1a
February 10th, 2006 at 5:36 am
ditto what the article and comments have said.
MangMerto
February 10th, 2006 at 8:23 am
Floyd. Ano kamo?
Needless
February 10th, 2006 at 10:11 am
… must be confucious himself. Was that a poem?
naykika
February 10th, 2006 at 10:31 am
floyd; i got what you you were trying to deduce the first time that was why the question. but I now resign that it will take more than the wowowee tragedy before we ever change our attitude as a people. just take a look, instead of looking why such happentance, everyone concern trying to wash their hands intead of facing to responsibilities and going to roots of all our social problems.
lokalokang matino
February 10th, 2006 at 10:58 am
According to a joke item I’ve read, dapat daw at the time the crowd surged to unmanagable stance.. DAPAT SINABI sa crowd — Parating na si Speaker De Venecia at magsasalita sa harap nila. At dali-dali daw maguuwian ang mga ito.
He-he-he-he !!! Posible!!!!
Needless
February 10th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
The designer of the roof which caved in some part of the globe tried to end his life. A Japanese directly responsible for the latest stock plunge took his life. Now the Filipino person responsible for the ULTRA stampede will try to wiggle his way out of it. Shame, shame….
KenshiNZ
February 10th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
Again history repeat itself. It takes a Tragedy to wake up the Filipino.
Rizalist
February 10th, 2006 at 11:47 pm
Sheila,
You’ve made a powerful case for Public TV. Though “educational TV” has tended to be an oxymoron in practice, it IS useless begging the ad-driven commercial television genre to please, please inject some values formation or poverty-alleviation programming into their work. The simple truth is the “content” better sell the products of the advertisers, or there won’t be any content next week. Btw, this is absolutely true for newspapers and radios too. And anyway the theory is that the mix of news, information and entertainment is driven by the market–clearly a myth invented by publishers, producers and marketers. The problem with subscriber supported Public TV of course is that the supporters tend to not really need the education part of it, so PTV tends to become entertainment for the educated. Alistaire Cooke instead of Willie Revillame. Competitiveness is still the key unless we want Socialist TV. The people who want to transmit values have to compete with the whorehouse aerobics dancers with stuff that is just as entertaining. Otherwise even PTV becomes hohum boring. Look what happend to INQ/TV. That’s what ‘values formation’ buys. Besides I’m sure ABSCBN is hunting around for something to change its image, even a lil.
floyd
February 10th, 2006 at 11:49 pm
#
naykika said,
February 10, 2006 @ 10:31 am
floyd; i got what you you were trying to deduce the first time that was why the question. but I now resign that it will take more than the wowowee tragedy before we ever change our attitude as a people. just take a look, instead of looking why such happentance, everyone concern trying to wash their hands intead of facing to responsibilities and going to roots of all our social problems.
Naykika> unfortunately it is for you to do that. to change the peoples mindset. to help them and make their lives better because you are of the intelligensia.
I’d be happy to help if you want ^_^
naykika
February 11th, 2006 at 12:14 am
sheila,
first time i have to address my comment to you and please allow me. In here(canada), we have an agency CRTC (Canadian Radio And Telecommunication Commission) that regulates commercial t.v. contents. Although we consider ourselves beyond censorship, but we are also very responsible when it comes to programming. Until now fox network has not been approved yet. anyone can always subscribe to pay t.v., but free program just for rating purposes only would surely get a closer look from this agency. And programs not suitable for children not even allowed until bedtime. I always believe that even in a democratic society and I consider ours one-a free for all competion for rating just for advertising profit is not condusive to the welfare of its people. thanks..
pulsopinoy
February 11th, 2006 at 10:21 am
“wrong defense”
i studied ABS-CBN’s defense moves (every detail). Again, they are not studying their moves – wrong defense.
the pr girl, seems not to do her homework, wrong pr. she reacted in the name of her boss. the good pr on that tragic day – must simply be on the side of the victims. not with a thousand sorries, apologies, or tv images of the victims with the bosses, and talents of the network – and worst: unwarranted justifications of Gabby Lopez (even after the committee report).
bullying is not the name of the game. plain and simple – just help the victims. not act, as if you are the boss of the whole Philippines. now it appears, the Lopez empire needs humility.
tragedy should not be used as another “business opportunity.” the worst of its kind, the network simply recycled the “stampede tragedy” for their own business. bantay bata, abs-cbn foundation, etc. (and other shadowy foundations of the empire) must stay away from the responsibility – let the TV network make the sacrifice. let us allow the government to investigate this!
again, wrong defense!
from: http://pulsopinoy.blogspot.com/
marissa1595
February 11th, 2006 at 11:19 am
wowowee is the event organizer. It’s their responsibility. They should have provided the security not the police or the barangay tanod. It’s not a public affair like a fiesta, it’s a private event and they should pay private individuals to handle crowd control.
PinoyPress » Blog Archive » The media beat
February 11th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
[…] But it has to be done. We in the press cannot continue to claim, let alone exercise, moral superiority when we cannot even have the cojones to take a look at ourselves and examine the way we do things. The Philippine media is an important institution. It can be proud of its history; several of our national leaders had come from the press, for instance. But it is also vulnerable to manipulation and misuse. It can be narrow-minded and profit-oriented, as Sheila Coronel points out in a recent speech before advertising executives. Many journalists are inept and atrociously corrupt. It’s time to let the sunshine in. […]
Sheila Coronel
February 11th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
Rizalist, you are right public service television is only part of the solution. And it isn’t simple either — how do you fund public service TV and how do you ensure its freedom from government control? Naykika, for sure, there has to be more regulation of free TV, but again, in a situation where institutions are weak and subject to intervention and “capture” by partisan political interests, whom can we trust to do the regulation? and how do we ensure that regulation is not used to protect or advance vested interest?
While we thresh out these issues, the networks should already, on their own, start rethinking prime time programming, in particular. Hence, the appeal to their civic responsibility and their vision of public service and the educational role of television. Public pressure is one way to goad them to be more responsible. Advertising pressure is another.
primo
February 11th, 2006 at 10:00 pm
media’s soul searching…. ….. ….. ….. after the tragedy … … …. ….
…. … …. … … … … ….
Timtim2
February 13th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
MalaMalaki talaga ang impluwensya ng mass media lalung lalo na sa TV. Hindi naman kahirapan lang ang nag-udyok para marami ang pumunta sa Ultra.
Mega promote ang TV stations sa kanilang mga GAME SHOWS. Nandyan yung magpalabas pa sila ng drama story sa buhay ng mga nanalo sa GAME SHOWS nila. Eh di itong si Juan, nangarap din na dapat mangyari din sa kanya yun. Yayaman sa mabilis na paraan.
Mabuti at sinisiguro na ng PNP wala ng tulad nitong Ultra Stampede na mangyari sa iba pang mataong lugar. Binibisita at iniinspeksyon nila ang mga madalas puntahan ng publiko tulad ng mga shopping mall, commercial centers at iba pang establisyemento. Dapat laging nakahanda para sa ano mang emergency.
emilpaz75
February 13th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
It’s a tragic event that we all want to forget. But the real problem is how to prevent media institutions from taking advantage of a seemingly harmless gesture to the poor. The answer is quite simple – TEACH THE POOR HOW TO FISH. Why don’t we encourage media outfits to produce tv shows that focus on giving “poor” people the skills they need in order for them to earn a decent living? Just imagine a tv show giving away free training opportunities in the fields of agriculture, technical and mechanical skills, etc. Then couple that with establishing cooperative organizations for those people who will graduate from these training programs. I know it’s a little bit formulaic and cliche. But you can be a bit creative with this idea. Why not make it a reality type of tv show? A show wherein you’re gonna highlight the progress of the contestants for a specific period of time (like how they’re doing with the training program, personal problems, etc.). In my humble opinion, it’s better than giving away money without a certain amount of dignity and responsibility for those people who will receive it.
jr_lad
February 13th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
that’s a good idea emilpaz75. i go with that. or i’ll go a little farther (wilder), instead of game shows raffling away easy money. why not have a game/reality show that raffles away jobs for those countless jobless individuals then monitor the progress. it’s sure is a better alternative than giving away easy money or the band-aid solution of the govt. in giving lugaw to the poor.
tongue in, anew
February 14th, 2006 at 6:23 am
jr_lad, emilpaz, I’ve watched one such program over QTV-11, where 3 men competed for a job as KFC crewmember. The prospective bosses were the judges themselves. I was particularly impressed that they also aired managers’ comments on the “applicants'” performance as the show progressed. That gave the audience a peek into the minds of prospective employers – great info for would-be applicants.
Sad to say, however, it’s not the kind of show that would pull in the viewers as you both would have wanted. Since it was featuring KFC, and KFC only, it limited the advertising revenue – a sure criteria for any show’s early demise.
I also watch a program over Net25 showing ordinary people who ventured into small businesses that turned out successful and made their owners a lot of money. Nice intentions, another goldmine for would-be entrepreneurs, but another advertising turnoff.
The networks alone are not responsible for the sad state of Phil. TV. Advertisers, and for that matter, the companies in the ads, share part of the blame too. They should start supporting shows like these. The networks on their part, should think out of the box and make these shows more appealing both to the target audiences and advertisers.
You’re right that it’s better than giving away easy money. Wowowee asks contestants practically giveaway questions a lot of them can’t answer. It only shows the world the kind of education our poor people have. It’s very disgusting, especially at lunchtime.
May punto si Joey Deleon: “kung gusto niyong magkawang-gawa, public service program na lang, wag na gawing game show”.
jr_lad
February 14th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
tounge,
i know suntok sa buwan etong idea na to. this will not sell with the audience and the advertisers. the network likewise wouldn’t want it. as what another blogger here has posted, it’s pure business on the part of the network owners. they want shows that give high ratings… in the guise of public service.
but maybe the govt. network can give it a try. solicit jobs and create a show.
baycas
February 14th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
sociologist michael tan has these alternatives to offer:
“Other countries have shows that reward initiative — for example, innovative small businesses. The shows feature the business itself, with the entrepreneur recalling how she started out and built up, often slowly, her business. In the Philippines, it could take the ‘Maalaala Mo Kaya’ format, as the entrepreneur explains the blood, sweat and tears that finally brought success.”
“It doesn’t have to be business ventures only. Why not something like ‘BBC Challenge,’ which featured projects from around the world that tried to address an environmental problem? ‘BBC World’ actually ran a whole series on these projects, and then had people voting, through the Internet, for their favorite. A Filipino, Justino Arboleda, won for his use of coconuts to prevent erosion and he’s hardly mentioned in local mass media.”
“Maybe we could up the ante here by having people, NGOs or even an entire ‘barangay’ [village] submit small-scale proposals around income-generating projects, environmental conservation or dealing with some social problem. The network foundations could pick out several projects each week to fund, feature them on TV as they explain their plans, and then return to them in six months, featuring both successes and failures. Again, an entertainment format can be used here as the events are reenacted: how did one barangay deal with their drug problem, for example. Ratings? You’ll have entire barangays glued to the television set as they watch themselves doing some good for their communities. Now that’s reality TV.”
“Why not prizes, in these shows, for people from the audience who are able to answer very practical questions about Philippine geography or history, flora and fauna, national heroes (and national scoundrels), drugs, family planning, traffic rules and regulations, disaster management? The cell phone companies could offer prizes as well for people who can text in the correct answers.”
“Not entertaining enough? Depends. I’ve watched Chinese dating shows where ‘searchers’ and ‘searchees’ try to impress each other with their intellectual capability, even while answering questions about their views of the world, of life and of love. They’re quick, they’re witty, and can still end up seductive and naughty. The audience loves it, cheering and jeering.”
There’s room for celebrities, too. In England, Jamie Oliver made waves rising from his working-class background to do a very successful TV cooking show. The success came not with upper-class pretensions but by being down to earth and practical. He’s since branched out, offering other working-class kids scholarships to cooking schools and featuring them on his show. The ones who succeed are praised, the ones who fail get tough, but still supportive, advice from him. He’s also started a campaign to get junk food out of Britain’s schools, by offering recipes for alternative healthy meals. The politicians noticed, and now he’s a consultant for the school feeding programs.”
“For the entertainment industry to say all this won’t work in the Philippines is to insult the Filipino. It’s saying we (or more often, ‘the poor,’ ‘the masses’) are too dumb to handle shows that require skills and cerebral activity even as their shows do dumb down the Filipino. Who among the networks and entertainment industries will be bright enough, imaginative enough, bold enough to reverse the trend?” http://news.inq7.net/opinion/index.php?index=2&story_id=65663&col=81
jester-in-exile
February 15th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
baycas,
“Who among the networks and entertainment industries will be bright enough, imaginative enough, bold enough to reverse the trend?”
let’s see — local movie makers would rather make sex films and campy formulaic ones instead of damn good ones, for the reason that they sell. how many metro manila film festivals showcased good movies? few, if any, truly carry the torch lino brocka once held. if there were more, we’d see more of the likes of sakay, bagong buwan and other such movies.
television – eat bulaga has lasted, what, a quarter of a century? talk about dumbing down, the format and (lack of cerebral) content hasn’t changed much since its early days.
even our sitcoms focus on slapstick, poking fun at others, skimpy clothes and such. even our newscasts sound tabloidish
if television is the king of influence, then advertisers are the power behind the throne. television can only do so much for free; if advertisers decided to put more into quality programming then there would be less crap showing on the idiot box.
but there you go, with advertisers saying that it’s the dumb shows and the crass ads that get the best ratings and recall value. that’s crap and we know it… why else would many of these people watch CSI on cable instead of encantadia, for instance?
tambuli
February 15th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
damaged culture … thanks in part to media and the government
jr_lad
February 15th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
speaking of trend, there was a time when people in the entertainment industry were being looked down by the “sosyalistas” in our society as too “baduy”, dumb and no class. now, the trend is reverse, they are the ones looking down at people. even making fun in their shows for grammatical errors made by guests and some interviews they made on people as if they’ve mastered the art (reminds me again of one blogger here before
). yet, these entertainers are being cheered and even idolized by the masses. it just shows how bad the state of mind of the people had become. it’s very evident as what jester here has pointed out to the qualities of movies or tv programs that are being produced now compared before. all crap!
baycas
February 15th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
for a guy who owns only one television set (in a household of four, tv placed in the living room, consumption mainly done by “yaya”) and not even a cable tv subscriber (but owns a dvd player!), i really don’t know about the “trend” on television firsthand. what i know, as in the past, is that tv programming is very much dependent on the sponsors and the latter’s presence will be dictated by what kind of show (which relies mainly on its popularity) one network is going to air.
if the “trend” is towards shows that are no-brainer and just cater to entertainment (casting a very wide net for captive audience) with prospects of winning prizes on the side, i guess, one has to live with it…for TELEVISION AND THE PEDDLING OF DREAMS, no matter how perilous the peddling is and how fraudulent the dreams are, ARE HERE TO STAY. tv shows will remain as they are as long as their viewers will patronize them and consequently advertisers will continue to sponsor them.
i always believe that too much television makes juan a dull boy. so, you can either be productive or be a “couch potato.” it’s just a matter of CHOICE. perhaps, choosing NOT to indulge in too much tv viewing is the answer…just to address the evil effects of television…
dr. deepak chopra said, “To make the right choices in life, you have to get in touch with your soul. To do this, you need to experience solitude, which most people are afraid of, because in the silence you hear the truth and know the solutions.”
as for me, in my solitude i heard the truth and already knew the solution…because as i stare on my electric bill in silence, i made a decision to cut down on my power consumption…and tv usage is certainly one of them!
ParengPepe
February 18th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
Joey de Leon, pare naman, tigilan mo na ang pag papakyut, 70 anyos ka na, at ang isa pa doon sa open letter mo, inamin mo rin ang pambabastos mo sa bandang huli.
Dude.. please… give us a freaking break. You got caught… and that’s what it is. Tang na naman… ano palagay mo sa amin.. hunghang?
rubin_jub
February 18th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
the crowds were greed and walang disiplina. Karamihan mga mapagsamantala at manggagamit pa!
jr_lad
February 19th, 2006 at 12:19 am
oh, and abs-cbn is not the user. yung mahihina pa ngayon ang mapagsamantala at manggagamit. inabsuelto nyo na naman ang kapamilya nyo! kapal nyo! huwag ng ilihis ang usapan. harapin na lang at aminin ang responsibilidad!
vonpogi
February 19th, 2006 at 12:47 am
Bakit natin ibubunton ang sisi lang sa ABSCBN. Inamin na nila ang kanilang kasalanan at kahit papaano ay may ginagawa silang tulong. May nabalita ba na tulong galing sa gobyerno??? wala yata akong naririnig na tulong ah. Kahit anong negosyo ay kailangan mong ng gimmik para pumatok. kahit na papaano ay ang abscbn ay nagbibigay ng malaking pa premyo at may natutulungan. itong gobyerno natin ang mga naka upo ang yumayaman dahil sa pag nanakaw. Ngayon ay may sakuna na naman sa atin at ano bang kamalasan nangyayri sa bansa natin. Sino ba ang dapat natin sisisihin sa mga nangyayaring kamalasan.
Lahat nga naka upo sa gobyerno natin ngayon ay PURO MAGNANAKAW at pati na sa SUPREME COURT at mga HENERAL.
baycas
February 19th, 2006 at 6:37 am
please get used to the notion that there will always be a user if there is someone willing to be used (“walang manloloko kapag walang magpapaloko” in the affirmative). television is the predator and the gullible is the prey…
have you ever considered that the lopezes also benefit from this intense tv ratings competition? more tv consumption means more electric power consumed (“buhay na naman ang mapanggamit na meralco…mapanggamit, di ba? tingnan mo na lang ang mga supreme court decisions laban sa kanila.”).
how about the telemarketers? i followed on karen’s tadhanadotcom (see recent live shoutbox) and i found this:
“Wowowee Stampede and Telemarketers http://www.tadhana.com/detour/?p=326
Please be aware that telemarketers are taking advantage of the tragic incident that happened at the Wowowee’s first anniversary at the ULTRA in Pasig City, Philippines. They are soliciting Pinoys worldwide to buy their products with the notion that it would benefit the victims of the tragedy…”
i don’t know if there’s truth in the preceding but i believe one has to be DISCERNING by the choices they’re making. one must not fall victim to the evils in television…
much the same way, one must NOT fall prey to the predators in government.
jr_lad
February 19th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
there’s no argument about that, the local govt. & the police are also liable for the tragic accident. but for some people here to even defend abs-cbn and try to point the blame on others is intolerable. it’s just appropriate that they should shoulder all the cost for the victims. walang dapat ipasalamat sa kanila. in the first place, it’s a private affair. it’s their responsibility. just watch the replays of the program. how willie incited the people to come to ultra. such pronouncements as “pumunta kayo sa ultra at marami kaming ipamimigay na mga papremyo. and the most telling one? (the cause of the stampede maybe?) “lahat ng mabibigyan ng ticket ay may P20,000”
Equate that and what will you get?
1. poor and desperate people in ultra (waiting for 3 days) = pack of hungry wolves
2. P20,000 = piece of meat.
3. result = stampede
isn’t that outrageous? enough of the crocodile tears.
ka lando
February 21st, 2006 at 7:34 pm
On the poverty aspect…
Unlike you guys, i do not look at poverty from a very far point of view, but from the inside. When you say, 30 to 40 percent of the population is at poverty level, i am in that level.
Those people at the Ultra on that unfortunate day were avid fans of the the show. For one year (it was an anniversary, right?), they have enjoyed watching that show on television. You see what i mean? They can afford to buy television. I transfered here in Manila two years ago to go on with my first decent paying job. And it took me several months before i was able to afford my 21-inch tv set. Several months… then what? Only to realize that ABS-CBN and GMA have weak signals in my area. So now Im three months behind on my Sky Cable bills.
In many other ways, i am a poor person. I came from a poor family. Now i have a family of my own, and i am rasing my poor little boy. Many days of the month, i would find myself thinking of how to get the money to buy an infant formula, or a box of cerelac. Those who have been to their pedia know how much it costs to give my boy the vaccines he needs.
Everyday, i take the MRT to go home from work. I’d take off at Ayala station and head to the jeepney station at Park Square. Between the MRT and jeepney stations, do you know how many restaurants and fast food chains are there that i need to pass by? On some very very rare instances only would i dare treat myself and my jobless wife to a tasty affordable meal on one of them. Most of the times i would just pass by, simply because a 29-peso burger good for one eating is more expensive than a 25-peso kilo of rice that would last two days.
Need i convince you more? I am poor. It’s a reality.
But even though i’m poor, i would not squeeze myself between 30,000 other poor people just to BEG for P20,000. Hindi rin po makapal ang mukha ko para gumawa ng kung anu-anong kabaduyan at kakapalan sa telebisyon para lang ma-ambunan ng pera mula sa mga “well-off” na audience. These are the things that you see people do in the set of Wowowee. But in fact, not many poor people would do those things either.
A friend of mine is even poorer. He recently lost his job, and he has three kids and a jobless wife to feed. He lives in Pasig. Ultra is in Pasig. So why did he not go to the Wowowee anniversary?
“Pre, may dignidad pa rin ako. Maghahanap na lang ako ng trabaho kesa maghingi ng limos habang nasa telebisyon,” he said to me.
You see, not all people living in poverty are acting like hungry wolves. Not all poor people can be manipulated by media to act that way either.
Unfortunately, the media keeps on trying. And the government keeps on neglecting.
Tsk…
alterselves » Kapamilya Meal or No Meal
June 20th, 2006 at 1:24 am
[…] Filipinos are starving. And fellow Filipinos manipulate that. First it’s disgusting and then it’s funny. […]
PWiT - Philippine Week in Tech » Mobile TV = Next killer ap for mobiles?
March 11th, 2007 at 1:12 am
[…] It seems logical: TV is such a dominant medium, accounting for more than 60% of total ad expenditures in the Philippines (the average in Asia is 43%), and every time you walk by a squatters area you are more likely to hear a TV show’s audio blaring out of the windows instead of a radio program. And so it seems that everyone’s just waiting for a mobile TV service to become available and will be jumping on the bandwagon as soon as it goes live. […]