Media and the Elections

The media always has a prominent role in elections. Its prominence is, among others, a function of the number of voters in the area reached by a particular media technology.

The outcome of elections is influenced by what people know about the candidates and the image they create in their minds. This is what the media does.

If it is radio, then the important places are where the voters listening to that station are located.

The more voters listening to a radio station, the more important that station is in determining the result of the elections.

If it is the TV media, then the number of voters viewing that TV station determines that station's importance (and the cost of TV time).

If it is print media such as newspapers then the number of voters reading that newspaper determines the importance of this medium of providing information.

Our election laws have placed a limit to the amount of media, (if we can use the term in a generic sense) that a candidate can use.

When it comes to posters, the law, through COMELEC, has limited the areas where posters can be placed as well as the sizes of these posters.

A valid question here is: why put such limitations?

The answer to this question will have to consider the purpose of the limitation. (Rules are not ends in themselves.)

If people need to know their candidates in order to make the correct choices, why set limits to opportunities for them to do so?

The principal reason appears to be economic in nature more specifically, funding capability.

There is an objective to “equalize” the playing field so that those who are moneyed and can afford the cost of media will not have an advantage over those who have limited funding.

The next question is: What should be the limit?

There is an amount per voter that is allowed by law as election expenses, but there is no explanation how that amount was arrived at.

Another question is: Is the law and the limit effective in providing opportunities to candidates with limited financial resources?

These are very difficult questions to answer because these limitations could have the opposite effect. They could curtail the ability of voters to know their candidates.

For example, limiting the areas where posters can be placed is a rule that favors the moneyed candidates. Why? Posters are cheaper than radio and TV time. The rich candidates can buy a lot of expensive airtime but the poor candidates can't make many posters because of the limitation in terms of geographic space imposed by law. (The common poster areas can't even accommodate the posters of all candidates)

The authorities can tear up and remove all those posters that are not in common poster areas but does it help in the voters getting to know their candidates better? Relatively, are the groups tearing up those posters doing enough to enable the voters know their candidates?

Given the problems faced by law enforcers and candidates with limited funding, I can see amendments to the law in the coming years.

Whatever these will be, I still go for maximum exposure of candidates to the voters.