Divide by two
LANGUAGE DIVIDES the media audience as it does Philippine society: the broadsheets have always been in English while the tabloids have always been in Filipino. To class A and B are the broadsheets addressed, while the tabloids have for presumed readers the C, D, and E segments. But beyond the language divide is an economic and social difference: the broadsheets are also more expensive, each copy ranging from P18 to P25, while tabloids cost P10 a copy.
The division is also based on twin assumptions: that the poorer segments of the media audience will not only buy tabloids because they’re less costly, because they’re also less educated they prefer their reading fare in Filipino. They are also assumed to be more interested in the sensational aspects of the news, which on a day to day basis are interpreted in the newsrooms to mean reports on sex and violence, and only superficial reports, if at all, on “serious” matters like governance issues.
These assumptions have been challenged at least twice. In 1971 the Roces group of publications reformatted its Taliba tabloid into a broadsheet, foreshadowing, it seemed, a change also in content, although the first issues still emphasized crime reports, including a sensational rape case. The declaration of martial law in 1972 cut that experiment and whatever possibilities for change the Roces group might have been contemplating short.
In 2000, (Philippine Daily) Inquirer founder Eugenia Apostol put together a staff drawn mostly from the English language press to run Pinoy Times, a newspaper that, although in tabloid format, would have broadsheet, meaning serious, content, which at that time meant reports, commentary and analysis on the impeachment of then President Joseph Estrada. Pinoy Times reached a circulation of 170,000 from an initial print run of 30,000. Although it lasted only until Estrada was removed from office, and shut down after two years’ existence, it was a significant effort to engage the mass readership in a meaningful discussion of governance issues.
The language and content division today persists in print, but is even more pronounced in television, where programming is patently divided along class lines.
The division is evident in the language used first of all, but is even more manifest in content. The “serious” programs, mostly talk shows in English on cable, are meant for professionals, businessmen, government officials, the wealthy, and the educated. The trivial, mind-numbing, exploitative and plain idiotic shows in Filipino over free TV target common folk, meaning the poor and powerless.
Both program types reinforce the widespread bias that English is the language of quality, while Filipino and local languages are that of mediocrity and even stupidity. Beyond this, however, the serious programs’ focus on expert analysis, most of them admittedly intelligent, informed, and perceptive, contrasts sharply with the studied idiocy of the game, noontime and early evening entertainment shows. The difference creates, and worst of all sustains, a knowledge divide so obvious it seems intended to keep the relatively well informed on the one hand and the uninformed on the other not only divided, but also in their respective states of knowledge and ignorance.
The networks have argued for decades that trivia and escape are what the great majority of their public wants. This stubborn belief in the inherent stupidity of the mass audience persists despite the results of research that show that the mass audience is hungry for real information, whether it’s on rising prices, education, employment, or other matters relevant to their lives.
The by now hoary assumption is that the majority of the TV public can understand only so much, and that, the media being commercial enterprises, pandering to the public’s supposedly limited wants is what rates enough to insure the networks’ profitability.
Despite claims that this is the age of freer and more choices, the choices available for TV viewing are actually limited. Over Philippine cable, which overwhelmingly airs US programs, viewers can choose among dance and singing competitions, personal and home make-over shows, police and crime series, cartoon networks, the daytime soaps, comedies, talk shows, fashions, and celebrity and gossip programs. For news they have the programs by such US networks as CNN, ABC, and CBS to choose from.
Over free Philippine TV, meanwhile, fantasy programs and reality shows patterned after similar US programs proliferate, while the news programs, mostly in Filipino, emphasize crime and celebrity news, apparently on the basis of the same assumption that such reports are what interest the mass audience.
In print, the illusion of choice is as established, based mostly on the differences in newspaper preference for this or that President and administration and whatever policies he or she may be espousing. No difference, however, is discernible in terms of their assumptions about the state of Philippine society, its problems, and the possible solutions to them.
The tabloids, meanwhile, remain as focused as ever on what their editors have assumed for decades is what the public wants. The Philippine media today—at least what’s usually called the “mainstream”—aren’t so much about choices. They’re about keeping people in their place by keeping them ignorant and divided. That means they’re not about change, but about keeping the country the way it is.
GMA News Tv is already bridging the gap though.
Sir, thanks for the reminder …Â