Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Wagging the dog: a rather long post

I’ve been involved in politics for almost half my life (for almost 15 years now), and I’ve seen how technology has affected the entire political process – from elections to how one perpetuates himself in power.

Being in the advent of what many consider as probably the single most important political exercise in recent history, the 2010 elections, I can’t help but be uneasy of the role technology is playing and will be playing in shaping the future of the nation.

Because of developments in ICT, information is readily available at everyone’s fingertips – or at least to those who have access to technology.  Some arguably conclude that because of the internet and instant communications like texting or chatting, the voting population is now more abreast with current issues, and voters are generally more educated.  Because of sites like Youtube, videos allegedly depicting irregularities and abuses are easily broadcasted to the public domain.  Videos depicting personalities at their best are also a dime a dozen.  In both cases, the public takes them up within seconds.  Then, there is of course election-related advocacy programs like the “Boto mo, i-patrol mo” and “Ako ang simula” of ABS-CBN, and the “Ako mismo” project reportedly funded by Smart Communications and Manny Pangilinan.

Truly, ICT has enhanced the whole process and has given the public a strong sense of empowerment.

Last Saturday, or was it Sunday, I chanced upon the movie “Wag the Dog” on one of my cable channels.  I remember watching the movie for the first time probably a decade ago, and at that time, I vividly remember how bothered I was after the film.  I instantly recalled another film “Mad City” and the more recent “Changeling”, which like “Wag the dog”, portrays a cynical point of view of how ICT can be manipulated to serve a particular interest.  These films, although set in different decades, show how easily the trusting minds of the public can be swayed and how to use public perception to attain an end.

Hoaxes and rumors spread like wildfire over the worldwide web and there is barely even time to verify the information that is so quickly sucked-up by the public.  In the political arena where perception is more important than truth, where form is greater than substance and propaganda far outweighs genuine action, will ICT really help the public in making the informed and educated choice, or will it simply condition the minds of voters towards an interest to be served?

I would like to believe that traditional and mainstream sources of information maintain a certain level of professionalism, integrity and responsibility (although it can also be argued otherwise), but the question that begs an answer is “Can the internet and other recently emerging sources of information be trusted?”

I am genuinely confused at the prevailing attitude of the global population on the emergence of new technologies.  Traditionally, people mistrust what is new or what is alien to them.  Everything is first taken with a grain of salt until finally, we learn to trust after a while of investigation and trial. 

This is not the case though for ICT.  We have more than willingly trusted our cellphones and our service providers, we so readily give up our information on Friendster and Facebook, we so easily refer to Youtube and Wikipedia as authorities in information, and immediately take action when we receive chain emails warning us of things including the end of the world.

I am unsure if this is because we are generally overwhelmed by technology and amazed at what technology can do for us, or simply because we have dropped down our guard.  Whatever the reasons, it seems that we take as gospel truths what these technologies feed us and immediately develop a trust and dependence on them.  This is a very dangerous tendency.

Many of us schooled individuals are quick to judge media personalities who decide to enter the realm of public service, advocating that these people are not the characters they portray.  We warn the masses not to confuse these people with what they see onscreen because what the public sees is a make-believe fantasy image and not the real thing.  With the growth of modern communications shouldn’t these precautions also now apply to all of us?

At least traditional media is still clear-cut.  We can still discern what is real and what is reel.  We can still distinguish that an actor is plainly an actor portraying a role in a motion picture, or a newscaster is simply a news reader reading something written by another.  The emerging trends in ICT are unfortunately not so clear-cut.  It has become very hard to discern what the information being fed to us really is – where did it come from? what is its purpose? whose interests will it serve; and is it really what it purports to be? (While I’m not saying it is the case, that Youtube video showing an Iranian woman being shot in a protest reminded me so much of that made-up video in Wag the Dog.)

Our election laws provide for lawful election propaganda, but these laws were written to cover traditional or analog media and technologies.  ICT is a new frontier that is now being exploited to the fullest. There is virtually no air-time limits, no requirements for proper identification of sources and anonymity is more of the rule than the exception, no regulations against defamatory assertions and materials – everything is virtually illimitable.

How ICT will affect the minds of our people and the results of the election still remain to be seen.  I just hope Photoshop, Maya, Vue, and the hundreds of other photo, audio and video manipulation softwares, Youtube, Wikipedia, and the millions of anonymous blogs, do not determine for us what is good for the country. 

I guess I just hope the dog doesn’t get wagged.

No comments: