Moral Grandstanding: The Dumbing Down of TV Viewers

I hardly watch TV (except occasionally for cable movies and international financial sites) and hardly read local newspapers, unless some events warrant for this.

Having to see some online discussions over an alleged impropriety by a local TV host, I was prompted to read today’s headlines.

To my horror, here is a primetime display of sanctimonious virtuousness!

A renowned Filipina international media artist along with a Solon lectured of the “dumbing down of the viewers”.

From the Inquirer,

“The debate is no longer whether it was child abuse or not,” Wilson said, referring to the widely criticized episode of Revillame’s “Willing Willie” show on TV5 that had a 6-year-old boy gyrating like a macho dancer while breaking into tears for a P10,000 cash prize.

“The facts are plain to see. No one with a sense of respect for another human being can dispute that,” Wilson said.

“The discourse now is how we, as Filipinos, as artists involved in the same industry that created Willie Revillame and shows like his, could have allowed this to go on for as long as it has.”

Acclaimed locally and internationally, Wilson has dozens of productions to her name as actress, director and producer, most famously her lead performance alternating with Lea Salonga in the original West End production of “Miss Saigon” in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Wow, see that phrase...“could have allowed this to go on”!

The controversial video can be seen here.

Having seen the above, I am quite sure that this doesn’t represent an isolated incident and that there have been many more of these. It’s just that in the past, these alleged immoral acts may have either been downplayed or ignored.

Here is a movie trailer where children dance the OTSO-OTSO—dance steps plastered with “sexual” undertones. The video can be seen here. But where have the moral censures been then?

What’s my point?

The short of it is that all these reek of political miasma.

First, this looks like more of selective condemnation of what looks like a media norm. Many local songs and dance steps have sexual connotations. And they have been performed in various TV programs or movies by children (as the above).

Two, while one may argue that the controversial incident and the trailer are different, which is technically true, this should even expose what seems as even more duplicitous application morality...Trailers are qua advertisement, i.e. meant to promote or sell to the public goods or services (in this case the movie). In short, one could interpret selling amoral behaviour through comedy cum dance scenes to the public. Selling and providing service are two different functions.

So other media programs have the moral license to do this, while others don’t? Who determines which is moral and which isn’t, the Philippine government, the Solon or Ms. Wilson?

Three, this smacks of the extended legal battle between the TV host Willie Revillame and his former employer the ABS-CBN but this time coursed through the public arena, perhaps involving third parties, predicated on moral issues.

Fourth, dumbing down of audiences isn’t just the work of TV programs but of politicians and their accessories in media, as well as, the political cronies who benefit from the current and previous political economic climate.

Dumbing down translates to more political control, more votes and the political appeasement of the underprivileged masses.

History shows that ancient Roman emperors provided free entertainment via gladiator combats and chariot racing and even gave away free bread as a “good way to keep the people of Ancient Rome happy and content with the way the city was being governed.” Moreover Roman emperors used this as a strategy to “keep happy the many unemployed people in Rome.”

See, dumbing down represents an effective political strategy!

Fifth, we go back to Ms. Wilson’s statements.

Again from the Inquirer

Even news reports on TV, she noted, are now “horrifyingly biased and sensationalist,” while noontime variety shows “exploit women and insult our intelligence” and talk shows have become “intrusive, subjective and tasteless.”

When a wife of a politician and two former politicians perform the role as news anchors, who frames the public (through polls) that the only two policy recourse to high (food and oil prices) inflation is either higher minimum wages or price controls—then in this case, I would agree (hands down) with Ms. Wilson, that this represents as “horrifyingly biased and sensationalist”-dumbing down of the audience.

But in contrast to her I wouldn’t even dare imply to impose political control using my sense of morality, or lecture them for their flawed brand of economics, or castigate the gullible audience or voters for buying into them.

That’s because I understand that these grandstanding political demagogues are mostly guided or incentivized by political ambitions (public choice) and the desire to generate self esteem (social signaling) rather than doing genuine social service (which is the work of entrepreneurs).

I would rather say that competition to provide information and knowledge should eventually help determine the truth and expose on the falsehood and pretentiousness from such media based demagoguery.

I would suggest that if Ms. Wilson so indeed desires to help, she ought to put money where her mouth is. And since she is a show producer, she could provide the necessary competition against these inferior, degenerate and manipulative shows rather than just pontificate.

The Filipino consumers, despite their dumbing down, will either eventually see the merits of her quixotic actions or punish her with financial losses.

Ms. Wilson’s comments represents a sweeping indictment not only of the industry but as well as the millions of patrons of the “horrifyingly biased and sensationalist”, “exploit women and insult our intelligence” and “intrusive, subjective and tasteless” shows. She had been unabashed to even say that these shows “insult our intelligence” which seems self-explanatory. (my household help watches some of these shows, so when I have lunch I happen to take a glimpse of these programs, especially the part where girls in skimpy outfits do their renditions--thus, I am partly guilty of Ms. Wilson's accusations)

So whether you agree with her or not, one thing is for sure, she grandstands on her ethical virtues as somewhat superior to the masses (yeah this includes me).

Finally, political grandstanding could be construed as a normal action for politicians.

So when we read from the same article where a Solon proposed that “top ad spenders should sponsor more quiz shows rather than song-and-dance programs that lure in millions of viewers with hefty cash prizes”, I would suggest that this Solon should put up her own private advertisement agency and try to see whether her idealism will be rewarded financially.

Otherwise forcing firms to adapt on what they see as moral, in contrast to opinion of the consumers, is similar to forcing them to close and tantamount to penalizing the economy just to impose their sense of idealism.

In short, restricting people to avail of the option to choose is a form of “slavery”.

The above events are best encapsulated by this poignant and pertinent quote from Michael Bakunin (1867) Power Corrupts The Best (bold highlights mine)

“Nothing is more dangerous for man's private morality than the habit of command. The best man, the most intelligent, disinterested, generous, pure, will infallibly and always be spoiled at this trade. Two sentiments inherent in power never fail to produce this demoralisation; they are: contempt for the masses and the overestimation of one's own merits.”

President Obama’s Use of Regime Uncertainty and the Political ‘Government Shutdown’ Blackmail

All of a sudden, President Obama embraces the Austrian perspective of Regime Uncertainty (Robert Higgs).

From the Washington Post, (hat tip Russ Roberts)

At a town hall meeting near Philadelphia on Wednesday, President Obama warned that the uncertainty of a shutdown could slow the economic recovery.

“Companies don’t like uncertainty, and if they start seeing that suddenly we may have a shutdown of our government, that could halt momentum right when we need to build it up — all because of politics,” Obama said.

Of course, the use of uncertainty here is all about political convenience. This have been predicated on the ongoing battle over proposed budget cuts from the Republicans.

The administration appears to use “government shutdown” as leverage to negotiate to prevent or mitigate these.

Graphics from Cato’s David Boaz

Yet what is being argued looks inconsequential relative to the budget (government spending) gains over the years.

And based on the Cato’s graphics, the Republican proposal would seem not as a NET reduction, but rather a reduction of expansion.

As Jacob Sullum of the Reason foundation writes,

The cuts represent less than 2 percent of the total budget, less than 4 percent of the deficit, and less than 5 percent of discretionary spending, which rose in real terms by 75 percent from 2000 to 2010 and by about 9 percent in each of the last two fiscal years.

Yet the administration is trying to spook (blackmail) the public with the prospects of mayhem from a prospective government shutdown.

US government shutdowns have not been rare.

Below is a table from Bespoke Invest showing previous shutdowns.

Bespoke writes, (bold highlights mine, table above from Bespoke)

“funding gaps in the federal government are hardly rare. While we all remember the two shutdowns in 1995, there have actually been a total of 17 shutdowns going back to 1975. However, due to their length as well as changes in federal law over the years, not all funding gaps are created equal. For starters, of the seventeen funding gaps highlighted, only eight lasted longer than three days. In other words, in most cases the shutdown was a one day affair or else it occurred over a weekend.

“As shown in the table, however, funding gaps prior to 1980 all lasted one week or more, and then from 1980 to 1995 all funding gaps lasted three days or less. The reason for this change is the fact that beginning in 1980 the US Attorney’s Office ruled that any time there was a funding gap, non essential federal agencies were required to begin terminating activities and ‘shutdown.’ Once that opinion was issued, funding gaps took on added urgency forcing lawmakers to come to an agreement. This is why the shutdown in 1995 was so notable.

Bottom line:

This serves as a lucid example that when it comes to cutting government (privileges) in terms of spending and control, you can hear the shrill of cry OUCH from politicians! Even if the proposed spending cuts seem inconsequential or even perhaps symbolical.

And in desperation or as a political maneuver, politicians employ various ‘strawmen-bogeyman’ tactics to scare the wits out of the public so that the public would be stampeded to approve their desires.

As former US President John Adams once wrote [The Foundation of Government],

Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.

Milton Friedman’s 4 ways money is spent

Stripping away control and spending other people’s money is so addictive that politicians can’t seem to do away with it and would fight heaven and hell to avoid it.

Update: Bespoke appears to have been proven right, a deal has been reached according to marketwatch.com. Details have yet to come in.

Dictatorship 101

Here is a fabulous amusing article by Paul Collier published at the foreignpolicy.com detailing on the advantages and disadvantages of policies frequently used by dictators (or even conventional politicians in "democracies").

Prologue:

``The old rulers of the Soviet Union were terrified of facing contested elections. Those of us who studied political systems presumed they must be right: Elections would empower citizens against the arrogance of government. And with the fall of the Iron Curtain, elections indeed swept the world. Yet democracy doesn’t seem to have delivered on its promise. Surprisingly often, the same old rulers are still there, ruling in much the same old way. Something has gone wrong, but what?

``To answer this question, I put myself in the shoes of an old autocrat—say, Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak—now having to retain power in a “democracy.” What options do I face? Hard as it is to bear, I have to be honest with myself: My people do not love me. Far from being grateful for the wonders that I have achieved, they may increasingly be aware that under my long rule our country has stagnated while similar countries have transformed themselves. There are even a few cogent voices out there explaining why this situation is my fault. I shake my head in disbelief that it has come to this, seize my gold pen, and start listing my options. I decide to be systematic, in each case evaluating the pros and cons. --Paul Collier

Some interesting strategies utilized by politicians/dictators from the must read article:

``Option 3: Scapegoat a minority

``Pros: This one works! I can blame either unpopular minorities within my country or foreign governments for all my problems. The politics of hatred has a long and, electorally speaking, pretty successful pedigree. In the Ivory Coast it was the Burkinabe immigrants; in Zimbabwe, the whites; in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Tutsi. Failing all else, I can always blame Israel America. I can also promise favoritism for my own group.

``Cons: Some of my best friends are ethnic minorities. In fact, they have been funding me for years in return for favors. I prefer doing business with ethnic minorities because, however rich they become, they cannot challenge me politically. It is the core ethnic groups I need to keep out of business. Scare the minorities too badly, and they will move their money out. So, though scapegoating works, beyond a certain point it gets rather costly....

Another common example is "Tax the Rich"!

The next two options have been commonly used in the Philippines...

``Option 4: Buy the votes to win

``Pros: Bribing voters plays to one of my key advantages over the opposition—I have more money.

``Cons: Can I trust people to honor the deal? If I pay them, will they actually vote for me? After all, there are some pretty unscrupulous people out there.

``On balance, I am not sure. I search the Web and stumble on a study by someone named Pedro Vicente at Oxford University. Vicente conducted a randomized, controlled experiment on electoral bribery in São Tomé and Príncipe. In some districts, bribery was restrained by external scrutiny, whereas in others it was not. Systematically, where bribery was unrestrained, the candidate offering bribes got more votes. Bribery works!

``In fact, bribery comes in two modes: retail and wholesale. Retail bribery is expensive and difficult but might still be worthwhile. Its advantage is that I can target pockets of voters critical for success...

``Why is this not a very effective counter? I have two points of discipline. One, paradoxically, is morality: Often, ordinary decent people feel bad if they take someone’s money but then renege. The other is fear of detection: How secret is the ballot? In Zimbabwe, President Robert Mugabe’s street boys spread the word that the government would know how votes were cast, and in the prevailing conditions of misgovernance, this warning could not be treated as an idle threat.

``But how much does it cost to bribe the typical voter? How many votes do I need to buy, and how much can I afford? Is there a cheaper way of buying votes?

``Indeed there is: wholesale bribery. Wholesale bribery works by paying for votes delivered in blocs rather than individually. Bloc voting is very common in impoverished, traditional, rural societies, where the local big shot’s advice is not seriously questioned. When votes are counted, it is common for many villages to have voted 100 percent for one candidate. If the big shot determines how individuals vote, it is obviously cheaper to buy his support directly.

``Overall, bribery is my kind of strategy. The only problem is whether I have enough money to win with it.

``Option 7: Last but not least, miscount the votes

``Pros: Finally, I have found a strategy that sounds reliable. With this one, I literally cannot lose. The tally might be: incumbent, 1; opponent, 10,000,000. But the headline will read: “Incumbent Wins Narrowly.” It also has advantages in reinforcing some of the other strategies. Once people get the sense that I am going to win anyway and that their true votes will not be counted, they have even less incentive to forgo bribes and take the risk of joining the opposition. Better still, I can also keep this strategy in reserve until I see that I am losing.

``Cons: The international community won’t like it. I’ll just have to remember not to go overboard: not 99 percent. It should not look like a Soviet election.

This reminds me of "Hello Garci"!