| 
 Late last May, mainstream newspapers trumpeted the 7.3 percent GDP growth rate the outgoing Arroyo regime touted as the highest since 2007. Just two weeks later on June 15, the same newspapers reported that unemployment rose to 8 percent from 7.3 percent in January and 7.5 percent in the same period last year. Economist Alejandro “Ding” Lichauco noted the contradiction: “What kind of growth is this that actually loses jobs instead of creating them?” His explanation that “the growth was all election spending” sparked a remark from me: “Those billions of campaign funds went into buying ‘baller IDs,’ hand fans, caps, sticker body tattoos, tons of plastic campaign posters, and tons of cheap printed t-shirts from China!” But that’s not all of it. Worst of all had been the candidates’ expenditure in  broadcast media. From the highest to the lowest posts, candidates’ media  spending could have run up to P30 billion. Nielsen’s Market Research  estimates that 75 percent of such media spending went to TV; 5 percent  to radio; and the rest divided among print and other media. Nobody  really knows the absolute total since even the top candidates, such as  the president-to-be, are presumed by seasoned election watchers to have  grossly understated their official report of expenses to the Comelec.  The Nielsen’s Market Research and the NGO consortium, Pera at Pulitika,  monitoring the campaign expenses have their reports but few believe they  have captured the real figures. Reports like that of BSA III’s spending  of only P403 million is incredible to most analysts. Each of the top four presidential candidates spent up to  the billions; the rest of the thousands of candidates in the  congressional, provincial and municipal levels put together spent tens  of billions more. But these payments for media airtime, especially TV,  do not generate new employment. They merely concentrate the flow of  money to the two main broadcast networks and eventually cause major  dollar drains as these networks have visibly spent much of their  billions from campaign advertising earnings by importing top-of-the-line  broadcast equipment to match the fancy floor-to-ceiling computer  effects screens of CNN which cost fortunes. Broadcast media in the  Philippines, which concentrate on entertainment, political or otherwise,  do not expand real production in the economy. In  the 1990s, the country had a “political advertising ban” which limited  candidates’ media election spending, with Comelec buying media  allotments to give “equal time and equal space” to candidates. I  benefitted from that in my 1995 Senate run. Posters were limited to  “common areas,” a rule retained today but observed in the breach. Those  rules responded to popular disgust with election overspending in the  1980s that always left the country poorer and dirtier. Then, Sen. Raul  Roco in 2001 pushed RA 9006, the so-called Fair Elections Act, which  lifted the political ad ban and has since made our national election  campaigns more and more expensive — like the good old bad days when  election costs had become unfair to candidates with little funds.  It is  clear that the media oligarchs were behind RA 9006, mobilizing  politicians and NGOs like Melinda de Jesus’ media watchdog, as well as  the KBP to lobby for it. The only real (and really  big) winner in the May 2010 elections is the Philippine broadcast media  and, as evidenced by the rising unemployment, it left the country a lot  poorer.  It seems that we have held the elections only to benefit the  media oligarchy. Why, the elections also led to the “triumph” of the  candidate which the media oligarchs have supported all along. It seems  that the losing presidential candidates were cooked in their own lard,  paying through their noses billions in advertising charges that were  giving cleverly disguised on-the-house media exposure, news insertions  and, as many suspect, pay-later advertising to their top rival. After  the elections, one of the broadcast giant’s minions will likely be  appointed to a Cabinet seat such as the DPWH or DoTC. Mainstream print media are villainous too as highlighted  by one recent case: The sacking of Belinda Cunanan by the Philippine  Daily Inquirer (PDI). The PDI masthead which claims that it stands for  “Balanced News, Fearless Views” has constantly been belied by its  putting the pro-Gloria, anti-Erap, then anti-Noynoy columnist  prominently on top of its op-ed section’s second page throughout Gloria  Arroyo’s nine-and-a-half year reign. It was only after the election  triumph of BSA III whom PDI had clearly supported that Cunanan was  summarily fired. Despite the claim of PDI that it has accepted Cunanan’s  resignation, the latter denies that she ever did. To  begin with, the PDI never had balance in its news or views on Erap as  it’s only known for coddling either pro-Gloria or pro-Yellow columnists.  But now that Gloria is out and Noynoy is in, it seems that the  newspaper won’t even allow one anti-Noynoy columnist  to exist alongside  its horde of Yellow writers! But frankly, all  these evils we see today in Philippine media pale in comparison to what  happened in 2001 when they actively aided and abetted the ouster of the  popularly-elected President Estrada by demonizing him, fanning the  frenzy of the Cardinal Sin-Yellow Army mob, and rationalizing the  treason of AFP and PNP generals. Not stopping at that, they later kept  vital information about the Epira law which allowed the highest power  rates in Asia to slip through public scrutiny. Then they lobbied for the  removal of the “political advertising ban” and swept the Garci cheating  under the rug for a whole year. Today, they are trying to sweep “Hocus  PCOS” under the rug as well by helping Smartmatic’s “Miss Transparency”  distract the nation’s attention. (Tune in to  1098AM, Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, 6 p.m. to 7  p.m.; Destiny Cable Channel 21, Talk News TV — Infowars Edition,  Tuesday, 7 p.m. to 8 p.m.; also visit  http://hermantiulaurel.blogspot.com) | 
 | 
(Reprinted with permission by Mr. Herman Tiu-Laurel)
Source: The Daily Tribune
URL: http://www.tribuneonline.org/commentary/20100621com5.html

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

0 comments
Post a Comment