Marcos Jr. has covered all the bases: election survey results, mainstream news media headlines, and social media echo chambers.
Inquirer: "Marcos Jr. Leads Latest Pulse Asia Survey for Presidential Race"
Philstar: "Pulse Asia: Marcos' Lead Grows..."
Manila Times: "Bongbong, Sara Keep Survey Lead"
Manila Standard: "Sara Leads By A Mile For VP"
Daily Tribune: "BBM, Sara Keep Pole Positions In Surveys"
"Are we supposed to accept the results of the surveys as gospel truth? What if they are wrong?" Sen. Richard Gordon asked in his press release during the 2010 election when he formally filed a case against SWS and Pulse Asia for frequently releasing pre-election survey results at that time, stressing that such surveys had robbed the people of their right to choose their leaders wisely.
The same questions are crucial today: What if these election surveys are wrong? More questions: Do the opinions of only 2,400 people represent the whole opinion of 67 million voters spread throughout the land? Who checks the validity of these surveys? How reliable are they? Does anyone inspect and verify the election survey and the raw data used as bases for its conclusion? Does anyone know who paid for the survey?
As to the last question, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Leonen, in his decision in the case of Social Weather Stations Inc and Pulse Asia Inc v Commission on Elections [2015] GR No 208062, has resolved that all surveys published must be accompanied by all the information required in Republic Act No. 9006, or the Fair Election Act, including the NAMES OF COMMISSIONERS, PAYORS AND SUBSCRIBERS (underscoring mine).
HEADLINE-GRABBING PROPAGANDA GALORE
Do election survey results, when publicly published and grabbed headlines, shape the voters' preferences, hence, partaking of the nature of election propaganda? Justice Leonen stressed:
"The inclusion of election surveys in the list of items regulated by the Fair Election Act is a recognition that election surveys are not a mere descriptive aggregation of data. Publishing surveys are a means to shape the preference of voters, inform the strategy of campaign machinery, and ultimately, affect the outcome of elections. ELECTION SURVEYS HAVE A SIMILAR NATURE AS ELECTION PROPAGANDA (underscoring mine). They are expensive, normally paid for by those interested in the outcome of elections, and have tremendous consequences on election results."
When a newspaper headlines a survey result, where will the news reportage end and the election propaganda begin?
Dr. Merlin R. Mann, Associate Professor of Journalism
of Abilene Christian University wrote:
"[L]et's think like a reader. The readers unfold the newspaper and see what first? The photos, the HEADLINES (underscoring mine)... may be more important than any paragraph in a normal story. Headlines must be accurate: in fact, in implication, in spelling, in grammar."
Dr. Mann listed "must be correct (in fact and implication)" as the top imperative for writing headlines. In the headline writing process, she set up the TACT test: Taste – Attractiveness – Clarity – Truth.
1. Is it in good taste?
2. Does it attract the reader's attention?
3. Does it communicate clearly?
4. IS IT ACCURATE, TRUE? (Underscoring mine)
5. A single "NO" above is a veto.
Do election survey results pass the TACT test: are they accurate, true? I have two sources talking about election surveys from which we may figure out an answer.
"Question can be asked. Answers will be given and transformed into numbers. It's seductive; it looks like science. But we now know definitely that answers to questions about where people obtain their political information are so inaccurate as to be worthless." (Mark Mellman)
"The dirty little secret of... surveys is – they are largely junk science placing marketing objectives of telling and selling a good story, above the practical and ethical objective of telling the truth... Often statistical methods are misused corrupting survey results while providing an air of scientific legitimacy..." (Excerpted from the article "Surveys and Dirty Little Secret; Hidden Distortion, Bias – Illusion of Scientific Validity: Business Beware")
In fact, in the light of the recent polling and survey "black eye" worldwide, including the US 2016 & 2020 elections, uncompromising critics have propounded: a) polling or survey is irrevocably broken, and b) pollsters and polling purveyors should be ignored.
Not here in PH. Surveys have grabbed the national headlines. A free premium election campaign bonanza, Marcos Jr. has bannered such headline-grabbing surveys routinely, reaping steadily the "two strokes of luck"-- the surveys and the headlines – in both Filipino voters believe.
In the US, Real Clear Politics frequently cited by various media organizations, gets its average figure from the top 10 surveys among a horde of pollsters all over the US. For example, in presidential job approval, Real Clear Politics averages all the quality information of Rasmussen, Economist, Reuters, Politico, Gallup, GU Politics, IBD/TIPP, PPP, NPR/PBS/Marist, and NBC/Wall Street Journal, and The Hill. Here in PH, we put our whole eggs in a basket of a handful of pollsters.
While the impact of the above headline-grabbing propaganda galore is on the spot, the repercussion is far-reaching: the bandwagon effect.
Justice Leonen asserted:
"Election surveys have been critiqued for amplifying the notion of an election as a 'horse race' and for reducing elections to the lowest common denominator of percentage points or a candidate's erstwhile share in the vote market rather than focusing on issues, principles, programs, and platforms.
"[T]here is the bandwagon effect where 'electors rally to support the candidate leading in the polls.' This 'assumes that knowledge of a popular 'tide' will likely change voting intentions in [favor] of the frontrunner, that many electors feel more comfortable supporting a popular choice, or that people accept the perceived collective wisdom of others as being enough reason for supporting a candidate.
"The bandwagon effect is of particular concern because of the observed human tendency to conform. Three mechanisms through which survey results may induce conformity have been posited:
1. Normative social influence or people's desire to adopt the majority position to feel liked and accepted or believe they are on the same winning team;
2. Informational social influence or people learning from the 'wisdom of crowds' via social proof because they 'believe that others' interpretation of an ambiguous situation is more accurate... and will help [them] choose an appropriate course of action; and
3. People resolve cognitive dissonance by switching to the side they infer is going to win based on the poll.
"'Conformity pressures can suppress minority opinion.' The bandwagon effect conjures images of an impregnable majority, thereby tending to push farther toward the peripheries of those who are already marginalized. Worse, the bandwagon effect foments the illusion of a homogeneous monolith denying the very existence of those in the minority.
"Surveys, far from being passive 'snapshot of many viewpoints held by a segment of the population at a given time,' CAN WARP EXISTING PUBLIC OPINION AND CAN MOULD PUBLIC OPINION. They are constitutive. Published election surveys offer valuable insight into public opinion not just because they represent it BUT MORE SO BECAUSE THEY ALSO TEND TO MAKE IT."
ECHO CHAMBERS
The impact on voters' preference of headline-grabbing survey results' is on-the-spot; the bandwagon effect is far-reaching, and the echo chamber is sheltered.
What is an echo chamber? It is a situation in which "beliefs are amplified or reinforced by communication and repetition inside a closed system and insulated in rebuttal." (Wikipedia)
Example: Conduct an election survey. Publish results in news headlines. Gather "pundits." Discuss results. Publish discussion in a news story: "Why Bongbong Up In Surveys? Let Pundits Explain." Pick up by other news outlets. Create a feedback loop. And go on in circles. And so on.
One striking insight by Tony La Viña, a former dean of the Ateneo School of Government caught my eye:
"Through social media, through revisionism of the Marcos legacy, through just constant positive news about [Marcos Jr.] in circles. In limited circles, micro-targeted groups of people have really bypassed the anti-Marcos ecosystem. The anti-Marcos ecosystem did not see this coming."
The gist of such insight is a challenging (or deriding?) message to the opposition taken from the title of a book about the history of Marcos' Crony Capitalism: "Some are smarter than others."
No comments:
Post a Comment