By Ariel Hans S.C. Sebellino*
THAT SOCIAL MEDIA in the Philippines is shamelessly (or shamefully, too) immature and fledgling — is a debatable proposition. It is also a matter of perception.
By all indications, media has a long way to go, according to some participants at a PCIJ forum a fortnight ago on the impact of social media, free expression, and the recent midterm elections. Was the last polling the first litmus test of how critical and crucial social media is to the national discourse? Quite frankly, I am not sure what people mean when they say social media should have a critical role.
If social media had such an impact at all, it seems to have come from its inherent characteristic –imminent noise created by the minority or the “marginalized”. This was how one panelist described the skewed population of SM users in the country. “Let us understand the nature of the beast,” said Julius Mariveles, a top blogger from Bacolod. “It cannot be otherwise,” Pierre Tito Galla, aka the Jester-in-Exile.
I am sure these social media activists understand this beast in the wilderness full well. See?! At least, some have upped the ante from mindless use of social media to one of activism. For all they care, they surely want to elevate the status of social media from one that is complex to one that is relevant and vested with mass appeal. Or whatever it is that will make it profound and useful. (Remember that from the very beginning, some have said that social media was born bereft of noble intentions?) Never mind if SM is not yet ubiquitous. “Tayo tayo lang naman nagkakaintindihan sa online. Konti pa tayo,” said a forum participant. [We understand one another online. We are just a minority.]
But what I cannot accept is the tendency of some quarters to minimize the supposed “cacophony” of social media to one of supposed insignificance. And that is simply because social media did not, or had not yet, triggered remarkable change in the voting behavior of the electorate, a majority of whom is forgivably so busy with day-to-day economic survival. It’s either they do not have any SM account at all, or the luxury of time to flex their fingers on the keys. Whichever way, the lack of access to SM of great numbers of Filipinos seems largely a matter of economics. Meaning: No infrastructure for Internet connection, still expensive to avail themselves of wi-fi service, would rather spend on food, do not know how to do it, or simply have no time for what they deem to be the non-sensical virtual business.
To be sure, some candidates won, and others lost, sans social media. If, for example, the noise-making was designed only to topple or discredit a candidate who was seen unfit for the elective post, then one might say social media did not take off as yet as a vehicle for educating the voters. The rushed judgment is that SM merely engaged in bashing or bullying candidates.
But between now and the next presidential elections in 2016, I am not hopeful we will see any significant uptick in the number of Filipinos embracing and using social media. I am afraid the noise-making could even reach an annoying level.
Still and all, who cares? What I care about is how we could elect the most deserving candidates. I may not be able to do my bit of educating online, which many groups are into already, yet still I want to do my part offline.
“Check your spheres of influence offline. Know that you can influence family members, neighbors, common folk who do not belong to your online community.” Gang Badoy of RockEd said something of this sort.
That is, only if after taking stock of our options, we do not get stuck online.
* Ariel Hans S. C. Sebellino is the executive director of the Philippine Press Institute. He attended the PCIJ Forum, “Taking Stock, Taking Control: Elections and Expression Online” that was held on May 28, 2013, with support from the United States Embassy’s Public Affairs office.