Candidates who snub mainstream media interviews and debates means missing the opportunity to draw undecided voters to their side, according to political analysts. (INQUIRER.net stock images)
MANILA, Philippines — Political analysts believe that in hotly contested elections, candidates who refuse to take part in mainstream media interviews and debates do so at their own peril.
While candidates may command a following on social media where they can promote their own narrative, snubbing media interviews and debates means missing the opportunity to draw undecided voters to their side and can erode the message they’re trying to put across, says political science professor Maria Ela Atienza.
Survey front-runner Ferdinand Marcos Jr. was the only invited presidential candidate to snub an interview with veteran TV journalist Jessica Soho for her alleged “bias,” and Atienza believes this slowed his momentum.
The son and namesake of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos said he would rather speak about his plans for the country than talk about “35-year-old issues” — a reference to his father’s martial rule and rights abuses.
‘You could still lose’
Atienza says that while Marcos Jr. may have a solid base, there is no certainty that this will be enough to secure his victory in the May elections.
“Based on the history of surveys, at this point even if you are leading, you could still lose,” Atienza says. “In this sense, if you’re not appearing [in interviews] or if you refuse to participate for whatever reason … that has an impact on people who are undecided. And you need all possible votes to win as president.”
Here are more of Atienza’s observations:
• Refusing to be interviewed by Soho made Marcos Jr. appear evasive. “The backlash here is he’s avoiding some questions. He’s not accountable, and that is one of the things people are looking for. If you’re the president or any other public official, you have to be accountable to the people.”
• A claim of bias on the part of the interviewer is not an excuse. “So what? If you’re ready and if you have the answer to criticisms, even if the interviewer is biased against you, you can show how you answer the questions. So he missed an opportunity there to explain the issue.”
• Marcos Jr.’s reasoning appeared arrogant. “You cannot rest on your lead in surveys because surveys, of course, reflect only a snapshot, and you’re not sure if this will change. Many things could change people’s views.”
• Refusing to face Soho contradicted Marcos Jr.’s message of unity. “How can you be united if you’re not talking with people who you label as anti-Marcos?”
‘Misstep’
Victor Manhit, founder and managing director of the political think tank Stratbase Group, describes Marcos Jr.’s snub of Soho as a “misstep” that the candidate’s camp has been working to remedy.
“Maybe it was a collective decision. They did not realize the impact [of] avoiding the biggest TV network and a popular host who has never been considered biased. The reason I’m saying it’s a misstep is because they did their best to frame the story differently,” he says, noting that Marcos Jr. has since granted interviews with other media outlets and personalities, including TV host Boy Abunda.
The issue of Marcos Jr.’s snub gained traction because Soho has a big following, and the backlash showed that “the public is concerned,” Manhit says.
“It’s very important to the people because you project that you’re the most qualified, but you cannot show up. There is the contradiction in the minds of voters,” he says.
Ex-journalist Armand Nocum, a “volunteer consultant” for Manila Mayor Francisco “Isko Moreno” Domagoso, another presidential candidate, says Marcos Jr.’s decision to skip the Soho interview was “ill-advised” as it eroded his base of “soft voters” who were waiting to see him personally answering questions.
Nocum says people are interested in presidential interviews and debates especially now that they are mostly staying home due to the pandemic.
“Right now, the biggest movies, the biggest ‘teleseryes,’ are the debates and interviews, and … they squandered that opportunity,” he says.
Marcos Jr. has since granted interviews, but the impact of the first interview for presidential candidates was different and set the tone, Nocum says. “[He] should have seized the moment to once and for all confront all the demons in his camp. He cannot be hiding forever. Anyway, he has good lawyers and good campaign experts.”
‘Come clean’
Nocum believes Marcos Jr. has a chance to recover by granting an interview with a “very credible” media outlet and answering all questions lobbed at him.
“What he could do is come clean and face every issue,” Nocum says. “If [he’s] able to answer the questions, future debates and future interviews will appear less interesting.”
There’s a chance that such an interview will be disastrous, but Marcos Jr. can always prepare for it, especially since he has experts in his team, Nocum says.
Atienza says that while Marcos Jr. has resources to help him recover from the backlash of the interview snub, these can only do so much.
“You can have a big budget [for] social media, but if that is the only thing you emphasize, you can also underestimate the people,” she says.
It’s important for candidates to join media interviews and debates, she says, citing a Pulse Asia survey indicating the continuing strength of traditional media, particularly television.
Per the survey results released in October, 91 percent of Filipino adults get their information on politics from TV.
Atienza says debates and interviews are important because voters rely on their perceptions of personalities when choosing their candidates.
People want their leaders to be visible, which is why in the aftermath of calamities, the public looks for the President, she says.
It’s also important to combine social and traditional media and even a bit of old-style campaigning to get as much support as possible, Atienza says. “Every vote counts.”
‘To ask those questions’
Manhit says the mainstream media are more relevant now in the age of social media because the interviews and debates allow the candidates to flesh out their claims and promises.
“This is where the media come in: to ask those questions, not [merely] to accept what he’s saying; to provide the alternative source of information; … [to] put meat or substance to those blank spaces,” Manhit says.
He recalls that during the 2016 presidential election, the voters were able to witness several debates held by the Commission on Elections in tandem with media organizations.
It was a “step higher” that forced candidates to be more accessible and answer issues, and that allowed voters to better appreciate them, he says.
Manhit says the media, as representatives of the people, should pressure candidates to speak and explain.
A candidate may consider it worth the risk to avoid debates or interviews, but it is incumbent on “the critical media to make it not worth the risk” as the people’s choices are at stake, he says.
“We deserve better than candidates ignoring questions and limiting us to slogans,” Manhit says.
RELATED STORIES
Marcos a no-show in another GMA interview
Communication woes postpone Bongbong Marcos’ radio interview
#MarcosDuwag? ‘Hindi ako duwag na tao’, Marcos says after skipping Jessica Soho interview