Attack Ad (apparently against Duterte, Binay, and Poe) Masked as Advocacy

Attack Ad (apparently against Duterte Binay and Grace) Masked as Advocacy

I take my hat off to the imaginative writer who created this attack ad parading itself as guide for choosing the deserving candidate for president. With negative ad against opponents taboo in Philippine election campaign, it takes imagination to skirt around the rule. This impractical prohibition has deprived ad strategists an effective tool to inform voters of the frailties and weaknesses of candidates.

If one listens carefully to the questions posed by the young girls and boy who seek the advise of elders, it is obvious who are being referred to.

With moral lessons from their elders (Tatay, Nanay, Lolo and Lola) the children were told that it is cardinal sin to steal (huwag magnakaw at mangupit) murder (huwag papatay). Later putting emphasis that there are candidates running for the highest position who are “magnanakaw, mangungupit, papatay ng tao at hindi pa handa,” The names do not have to be spelled out to figure out who they are.

It was a clever execution that goes around the TV network that insists only strength and worthwhile traits be played up in ads. With the flood of issues for and against candidates, audience forms opinion on whom to support. There are column feeds, derogatory comments and slanted press releases that show opponents in bad light. It is almost impossible to trace comments in social media that borders on the libelous. Even if regulatory and legal bodies insist that statements against opponents toe the line, they filter out and create impression that label personalities.

In swaying opinion propagandists simply reinforce what exist in the mind. What makes this ad, which ostensibly promotes a specific candidate, free from liability, is it did not mention names. As we have always pushed for attack ads as long as content can be substantiated be allowed in Philippine elections.

Media Must Allow Attack Ads in Philippine Political Campaign

Media Must Allow Attack Ads in Philippine Political Campaign

Viewers are not given a glimpse at the character of a candidate who curses the Pope or another who has been charged for pocketing billions for overprice. Nor one who defended a religious sect whose members mass demonstrations blocked traffic and caused thousands to walk home. These dark sides of those vying for public office are prohibited to come to light in political ads. As currently practiced it is verboten to attack opponents by playing up their dishonesty, poor public record or immorality.

In the promotion of products and services, the Philippine Adboard made up of representatives from media, advertisers, agencies and production company practice review of the content of television and radio ads prior to production. Ad agencies that translate selling ideas into words and pictures are required to submit television storyboard and radio scripts to check the truthfulness of their claims and if they adhere to standards set by the body.

However on political advertising the responsibility of reviewing ads rests upon the networks themselves. They form their own internal review board that determines if contents adhere strictly to its standards. No attack ads are allowed and claims are limited to the positive attributes of the candidate.

The practice solely plays up what make the candidates smell like roses depriving the viewers a glimpse of warts he is trying to hide. Due to the prevailing rule, the voters are deprived facts and information that helps him arrive at a wise decision whom to vote for. Even with litany of charges that the candidate had pocketed billions in overprice and bribes his opponent cannot label him as a thief.

Most candidates employ a phalanx of publicists and strategists who resort to whatever it takes to have media reporters and commentators in their pockets. Mudslinging using unfounded gossips and all available dirty tricks is resorted to smear personalities in social media and broadsheets. With attack ads employed in mass media, the networks can require valid substantiation and those subject to negative ads have all opportunities to repudiate and launch their own. If their claims are not based on facts they can be sued for libel in court.