Running head: ON LUCK AND HOPE 1
On Luck and Hope:
An Analysis of the Poor‘s Agency in Game Show Participation
Annjela Luz R. Oliver
University of the Philippines Manila
ON LUCK AND HOPE 2
Table of Contents
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….4
Research Questions…………………………………………………………………………..7
Background…………………………………………………………………………………..8
Analytical Framework………………………………………………………………………..18
Data Presentation…………………………………………………………………………….26
Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………31
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………43
References……………………………………………………………………………………44
ON LUCK AND HOPE 3
Abstract
This paper seeks to explain how Philippine game shows promote dole-out mentality among the poor and also to give a critical view on the concept using the notion of ―strategic suffering‖, in the context of the poor‘s participation in game shows. Filipino sociologist Jonathan Ong devised the term to refer to the people‘s agency as exhibited when they join game shows (Valisno &
Marcelo, 2011). Critics often blame game shows for their tendency to promote dole-out mentality among the masses, especially among the poor. However, the notion of dole-out mentality gives the poor a very negative image, and as said by Valisno and Marcelo (2011), critics often fail to consider the efforts exerted by these people in joining game shows. The paper examines this phenomenon with the help of key-informant interviews, focused group discussion and secondary data sources. The research used the ―dominant-ideology model of the mass media‖ (Heywood, 2007, p. 233) and the ―culture of poverty‖ theory (Oscar Lewis) for analysis.
Keywords: game shows, ―strategic suffering‖, dole-out mentality, poverty, ―dominant-ideology model of the mass media‖, ―culture of poverty‖
ON LUCK AND HOPE 4
Introduction
On February 4, 2006, an estimated 30,000 to 50,000 people queued to watch the first anniversary episode of ―Wowowee‖, a noontime game show aired on ABS-CBN Channel 2 (―Game Show
Brings Death‖, 2006). What was supposed to be an event of celebration turned into a tragedy when a member of ABS-CBN staff announced that the ULTRA auditorium would not be able to accommodate all those who came, and as expected, the people who waited outside the venue days before the show struggled madly to enter the gates (Red, 2006). The stampede resulted in
350 injured victims and 74 deaths (―Game Show Brings Death‖, 2006). The giveaways for that day included ―two house and lots, 15 passenger jeepneys, two taxicabs with franchises, and 20 tricycles‖ (Racoma, n.d.), PHP 20, 000 consolation prizes and PHP 1 million for the jackpot prize (―Game Show Brings Death‖, 2006). Criticisms from media authorities were thrown to
ABS-CBN, Wowowee‘s organizers as well as to show host Willie Revillame for failure to implement crowd-control measures. But most importantly, they were accused of taking advantage of the poverty of the people for their commercial interests.
In the March 12, 2011 episode of ―Willing Willie‖, a former game show of TV5, host Willie
Revillame made a six-year-old boy named ―Jan-Jan‖ to do a macho dance and the boy did this with tears in his eyes (McGeown, 2011). Despite the discomfort in the boy‘s face, Revillame further provoked him to dance, in the face of a cheering audience and in exchange for PHP 10,
000 cash prize for the ―talent showcase‖ (Salamat, 2011).
The Wowowee stampede of 2006 and Jan-Jan‘s macho dance were perhaps the most controversial episodes in the history of Philippine game shows, as they stirred various criticisms ON LUCK AND HOPE 5 from the media. The important point here, however, is that both events were criticized as consequences of the television station‘s exploitation of poor‘s despair for greater profits. This is indicated by the unchanged format of local game shows and their continued popularity
(McGeown, 2011). For instance, last July 16, 2011, GMA Channel 7 started airing ―Manny
Many Prizes‖, which is hosted by international boxing star Manny Pacquiao (―Manny‘s Next Big
Fight‖, n.d.). Just like other local game show hosts, Pacquiao declared that his primary objective for putting up the show is to ―fight poverty‖ (―Manny‘s Next Big Fight, n.d.).
Local game shows have been generally criticized for promoting what Anonas-Carpio (2011) termed ―poverty-advocacy mentality‖. They use prizes to attract audiences, especially from the lower socioeconomic classes. According to a study by AC Nielsen, TV viewing is ―the most popular type of entertainment‖ for the ―D and E classes‖ or the ―poorest of the poor‖ (Lorenzo,
2008), making it logical for these people to comprise the bulk of viewers and participants to these game shows.
In relation to this use of poverty rhetoric to draw people to watch and join game shows, another trend observed is the change in the criteria of game shows in awarding prizes. While in the past, talent showcase was the main basis for winning the prize, game shows nowadays placed amusement to the way contestants win the prizes with less effort (Lorenzo, 2008). In other words, today‘s game shows required less skill for contestants to win. For instance, game shows feature ―games of chance‖, which, according to sociology professor Dr. Manuel Bonifacio, promote a ―baka sakali (a maybe)‖ attitude among the participants. Such kinds of games are said to discourage Filipinos from working hard to improve their standard of living, hence the danger ON LUCK AND HOPE 6 of developing in them dole-out mentality. In this context, dole-out mentality is a type of mendicancy wherein people depend on games of chance, with hopes that good luck will change their situation (Adriano, 2008). In a country where the prices of basic commodities are almost always high, underemployment and unemployment are widespread and wages are unreasonably low (IBON, 2011), game shows provide a good alternative for the poor majority of the population.
But because poverty means more than just lack of money (―Willie and the Poor‖, n.d.), game shows are not a genuine solution to the problem of the needy patrons. The danger posed by the promotion of dole-out mentality among the masses is that joining game shows have the tendency to become a ―coping mechanism‖ (Bautista in Lorenzo, 2008), particularly for the poor. In this way, dole-out mentality can keep the masses from seeing the real causes of poverty and can thus have implications on poverty alleviation in the country.
As shown above, local game-shows have the tendency of promoting dole-out mentality among the poor. While it is not only the poor that constitute game show audience, their economic situation makes it easier for them to be attracted to the instant comforts being offered by game shows. However, this view puts much of the attention on media (game shows) and renders game show participants and viewers as passive (Cornelio in Valisno & Marcelo, 2011). The view that the poor becomes dependent on game shows makes them appear helpless and lacking initiatives in improving their condition, which may not always be true. Using Jonathan Ong‘s concept of
―strategic suffering‖ (Valisno & Marcelo, 2011), the poor‘s dependency on game shows can be seen as a way by which they cope with the structural nature of poverty, or the fact that poverty is ON LUCK AND HOPE 7 beyond their control. Hence, in this alternative view, it can be inferred that game shows might be promoting dole-out mentality only to a certain extent.
Research Questions
Research question: how do game shows promote dole-out mentality among the poor?
Specific objectives:
1. To define what game shows are and examine how the local game show industry
developed;
2. To determine the local popularity of game shows;
3. To define what dole-out mentality is and to look for its manifestations in the Philippine
society;
4. To determine what features of game shows promote dole-out mentality among the poor;
and
5. To give a critique of the concept of ―dole-out mentality‖ using Jonathan Ong‘s concept of
―strategic suffering‖.
ON LUCK AND HOPE 8
Background
A. Game shows and their rise in the local TV industry
Just like the television, game shows are not part of indigenous forms of media. Television came to the country via the Americans (Del Mundo, 1986), and although this was introduced to a developing country like ours, broadcast television flourished commercially during the 1950s and
1960s, parallel with the development of media in the United States (Pertierra, n.d.).
Early Philippine TV indeed was flooded with imported TV shows, or ―canned‖ programs (Chua in del Mundo Jr., 1986, p. 145). This was primarily because buying or importing foreign TV programs then was more economical than producing local shows (Chua in del Mundo Jr.;
Constantino, 1985, p. 30). According to Constantino (1985), early studies revealed that foreign
TV shows prevail in Third World TV stations, with the US being the supplier of ―prime time TV programs‖ including ―game shows, police/adventure thrillers, situation comedies, and films‖
(Mercado and Buck, 1981, p. 97 in Constantino 1985: 30). To quote: ―In 1981, local production of one single episode cost $800-$2400, while importing a whole foreign series entailed only
$100-$2600. The latter, if highly popular abroad, would also be less risky to screen than an untried Filipino program‖ (Mercado and Buck, 97 in Constantino, 1985, p. 30). In addition, while US TV shows were then being sold to developed countries at $3,500, these shows were sold to developing countries ―for less than $100‖ (Turnstall, 1977 in Constantino, 1985, p. 30).
According to Josefina M. C. Santos, Philippine TV programs can be generally classified into four categories (n.d., p. 3-4):
1. ―Foreign programs presented in their original, complete form‖; ON LUCK AND HOPE 9
2. “Hybrid basically foreign-produced programs partly modified to enhance local
reception‖;
3. ―Hybrid locally produced programs largely imitative of foreign formats or based on key
foreign content input or elements‖; and
4. ―Locally produced programs with local traditional content, or content espousing local,
traditional values‖.
Santos classified game shows under the fourth type (n.d., 4). Game shows generally refer to ―a television show‖ wherein ―contestants compete for prizes or awards‖ through ―playing games of knowledge or chance‖ (―The Free Dictionary‖, n.d.). For the purpose of this research, the focus will be on local game shows that feature ―games of chance‖, or those that include gambling.
While Santos classified game shows as locally-produced programs, they are still essentially indigenized or ―localized versions‖ of foreign TV programs. Some examples of localized game shows include The Price is Right, Family Feud, Wheel of Fortune, Who Wants To Be A
Millionaire, The Weakest Link, and Big Brother (Daffon, 2006).
B. Changing trends: more gambling, more prizes
One of the major changes in the format of local game shows is the shift in the focus of entertainment. While in the past, talent showcase is the main attraction in game shows, at present the amusement has shifted to prizes; today‘s game shows bring excitement mainly by showing people how to win prizes with less effort. In other words, there has been a change in the criteria for awarding prizes to contestants. According to Lorenzo (2008), ―In the old noontime shows, for example, much of the fun was provided by professional entertainers who ON LUCK AND HOPE 10 sang and danced or put on skits. The few contests the programs had usually showcased a particular skill or talent – say singing or debating – and people clapped when participants were finally awarded their well-deserved prizes.‖ For instance, she cited IQ-7, a quiz show segment of ―Student Canteen‖, aired on GMA Channel 7 in the 1980‘s, in which the intellectual capacity of the contestants are really put to the test (Ferre in Lorenzo, 2008).
By contrast, most of today‘s game shows are jam-packed with ―games of chance‖, or games that
―involve gambling‖, or those that are ―usually played for money or stakes, in which the winner is determined by chance event, as by drawing numbers or throwing dice‖ (―The Free Dictionary‖, n.d.). ―Whammy‖, a former game show of GMA Channel 7, featured a game of chance as showed by its mechanics: ―…three contestants take turns at a sort of digital roulette, yelling ‗go‘ or ‗stop‘ whenever they please. The idea is to pick up as much cash and prizes as possible, while avoiding getting the dreaded red demon known as the ‗Whammy.‘‖ (Lorenzo, 2008) Lorenzo
(2008) cited a number of popular game show segments which featured ―games of chance‖: the
―Taktak Mo o Tatakbo‖ of ―Eat Bulaga‖ (GMA-7), in which the contestants were made to pick questions, the answers to which begin with the letter behind which they lined up. The winning contestant would have the chance to spin the roulette, and the amount of money that would be taken home by the contestant depended on this. In the ―On the Spot Jackpot‖ segment of the same game show, the contestants stood on numbered spots. A cartoon named ―Twinky‖ would draw numbers and the contestants whose numbers were drawn would be given the chance to pick from a number of drums, each contained a cash prize that ranged from PHP 5,000 to PHP
25,000. The contestant who won the highest cash prize proceeded to choose from three vaults which also contained cash prizes that ranged from PHP 50, 000 to PHP 200,000. In the ON LUCK AND HOPE 11
―Pasalog‖ segment of ―Wowowee‖ formerly aired on ABS-CBN Channel 2, the contestant would get cash prizes if the face of the dice containing the sponsor‘s name faced up. In the ―Pera o Bayong‖ segment of the same show, questions such as ―red sauce ba ang carbonara? (Is carbonara a red sauce)?‖ would be asked and the contestants would line up behind ―Oo‖ (Yes) and ―Hindi‖ (No) signs. This elimination process would go on until only one player is left, and she/he is made to choose between ―pera‖ or ―bayong‖. Three of the bayongs contained prizes like ―1 million pesos, a car and house and lot‖ (Lorenzo, 2008). As shown in the examples, the mechanics of game shows are now usually based on gambling rather than particular criteria.
Another observable trend is the increase in the amount and variety of prizes offered by these game shows. Php 10, 000 was the highest cash prize offered by the earlier game show ―Kwarta o
Kahon‖, which was ―aired during the late 1970s until the 1990s‖ (Lorenzo, 2008); in 2001, ―Eat
Bulaga‖ offered a prize of PHP 1 million, then followed ―Wowowee‖ followed with PHP 2 million and ―Deal or no Deal‖ with PHP 3 million (Lorenzo, 2008). Local TV show host and comedian Randy Santiago was quoted: ―Nag-iba na siguro talaga ang mukha ng television. If you can still remember, twenty years ago wala naman masyadong namimigay ng pera sa TV.
Isa lang ang kilala noon diyan, si Tito Pepe Pimentel ng Kwarto o Kahon.‖ (Quintos, 2011)
Game shows are also getting famous for their philanthropic acts. Perhaps the most salient example of this are the game shows hosted by Willie Revillame, namely ―Wowowee‖, ―Willing
Willie‖ and ―Will Time Big Time‖; the first two were aired on ABS-CBN Channel 2 and the third is currently aired on TV5. In particular, when Revillame received criticisms for having a responsibility in the 2006 ―Wowowee‖ stampede, he answered in behalf of the organizers of the ON LUCK AND HOPE 12 show that they just wanted ―to entertain people, to help the poor and give them hope of a better life.‖ (―Game Show Brings Death‖, 2006) Revillame said: ―We just wanted to make them happy…In our own little way…we are helping the government. Every day, jobless Filipinos have [made] a career out of joining our game show. Is it a sin to give people hope? ‖ (―Game
Show Brings Death‖, 2006) GMA Channel 7‘s ―Manny Many Prizes‖ which is hosted by international boxing champion Manny Pacquiao also banks on the same objective of helping the poor. Reportedly, the funds that are used for the game show‘s prizes are from Pacquiao‘s own money (Valisno and Marcelo, 2011).
C. Battle for ratings, battle for profits
The aforementioned trends in local game shows are said to be rooted from the ratings battle among TV networks, particularly between GMA Channel 7 and ABS-CBN Channel 2
(―Resurgence of Eat Bulaga‖, 2011). Ratings pertain to ―the number of households with their radio/TV sets tuned to a particular station/channel or program for a specified length of time divided by the total number of households that have radio/TV‖ (Business Dictionary, n.d.). One of local TV‘s most notable characteristics is its being ―urban-oriented‖ (del Mundo Jr., 1986, p.
260-261) which means that programs are formatted for the entertainment of viewers in urban areas, namely composed of the ―low class‖ or the so-called bakya and the ―high class‖ or klas.
This audience segregation had been in place since the early days of the television, where foreign programs or so-called ―canned shows‖ (Chua in del Mundo Jr., 1986, p. 141) still dominated the screen. In particular, when TV stations purchase foreign TV shows, their decisions on assignment of timeslots were determined by the kind of programs they bought and the nature of the audience that is served by these programs (Chua in del Mundo Jr., 1986). Thus, TV shows ON LUCK AND HOPE 13 that cater to ―classes C and D‖ which are composed of the masses are usually placed at primetime slots, starting from 7:30 to 10:30 in the evening (Chua in del Mundo Jr., 1986).
According to Clodualdo del Mundo Jr. (1986), the ―masses‖ are comprised by ―the urban poor and the rural masses.‖ On the other hand, shows classified as ―non-primetime‖ are considered to cater to ―classes A and B‖, which are composed of the upper classes (Chua in del Mundo Jr.,
1986). As mentioned earlier, game shows are among the local programs that are usually aired at prime time (Mercado and Buck, 1981 in Constantino, 1985; del Mundo Jr., 1986). According to
Chua in del Mundo Jr. (1986: 144), TV stations gain profits from advertisers who buy ―time slots‖ in their programs. The ―time slot‖ (prime time or non-prime time) determines how much the advertiser will pay to the TV station. Prices for commercials or advertisements aired at prime time programs are higher than those aired at non-prime time shows. This is so because the
―percentage of viewership‖ is greater ―during the prime time hours (usually composed of noon- hours and between 7:30 to 10:30 pm)‖ (Chua in del Mundo Jr., 1986). For instance, an advertisement aired for 30 seconds during primetime can generate PHP 150,000 or USD 2,884 profits for the TV station (―Game Show Brings Death‖, 2006).
This explains why both channels provide equivalent game show programs that can compete with the other for ratings. The competition between noontime game shows ―Eat Bulaga‖ and
―Wowowee‖ illustrates this phenomenon. Eat Bulaga‘s record as the most popular variety show was challenged by Wowowee (―Resurgence of Eat Bulaga‖, 2011). In response, Eat Bulaga launched its ―Juan for All, All for Juan‖ segment which consisted of visits to baranggays similar to those then being conducted by Willie Revillame before the show was pulled off air
(―Resurgence of Eat Bulaga‖, 2011). ON LUCK AND HOPE 14
D. Game shows as an alternative way out of poverty
In relation to the philanthropic role being portrayed by game shows, patrons actually see these shows as solutions to their economic problems. This phenomenon can be seen as a result of the general economic situation of the Philippines. According to the World Bank, 30% of the
Filipinos live below the poverty line (Michaels, 2006). In its document entitled Midyear 2011:
Failing Economy, Growing Disenchantment (dated July 14-15, 2011), IBON showed that not much was done to improve the country‘s economic condition from 2010 to 2011. In particular, the conditional cash transfer (CCT) and public-private partnership (PPP) programs of the government were evaluated as temporary solutions to local poverty issues (IBON, 2011).
Falamig (2010) revealed the results of a survey conducted among people who lined up to watch
―Willing Willie‖. It was found that winning the jackpot prize was the main objective of the hopeful contestants, and that most of the respondents were either unemployed or have a monthly income range of PHP 1000 to PHP 10,000. When asked what they intend to do with the jackpot prize if they win, the answers were ranked as follows: (1) the prize will be used ―to buy basic needs [such as] food and clothing‖; (2) ―to put up a business‖; (3) ―to save money in the bank‖; and (4) ―to share with relatives‖ (Falamig, 2010).
Valisno and Marcelo (2011) showed similar results obtained from random interviews with people who get in line to watch TV5‘s ―Will Time Big Time‖. One 55-year old housewife from
Pasay City said that she often lines up at the studio because she was retrenched from her job at a garments factory and she finds it difficult to look for a new job given her age. A 46-year old mother from Tarlac borrowed money to be able to accompany her daughter for audition; ON LUCK AND HOPE 15 unfortunately, her daughter was not chosen for that particular segment of the show. When asked how she would repay her debts, she said that incurring debts does not worry her and trying their luck is what matters more (Valisno and Marcelo, 2011).
Valisno and Marcelo also found that 650 people queue at the TV5 station everyday to watch
―Will Time Big Time‖; during the show‘s first anniversary program, around 35,000 people lined up to get tickets. Most of the aspiring contestants of this game show are housewives and grandmothers (Valisno and Marcelo, 2011).
The Wowowee stampede in 2006 is viewed as a manifestation of the worsening poverty in the country. History professor Dr. Maria Serena I. Diokno from the University of the Philippines
Diliman said that most of the people that went to the show said that they have no source of livelihood, and that they see the game show as an opportunity to improve their situation (Fajardo
III, 2011). Dr. Diokno further said that ―They didn‘t know where their next meal would come from, and the ticket to the show represented an opportunity for a next meal…It was not even a question of year-to-year or day-to-day concern but meal-to-meal.‖ (Fajardo III, 2011)
E. Defining dole-out mentality
The term ―dole-out‖ literally means ―[to] administer or bestow, as in small portions‖ (―The Free
Dictionary‖, n.d.). Hence, dole-out mentality can refer to ―the attitude of solely depending on aid and give-aways‖ (FNRI, n.d.), ―dependence on external support‖ (―Understanding
Vulnerability‖, n.d., p. 3), or ―waiting for help to come or waiting to be told what to do‖ ON LUCK AND HOPE 16
(NAFRI, n.d., p. 201). Dole-out mentality can be seen as a part of a larger cultural phenomenon, the so-called ―culture of mendicancy‖ or ―culture of dependency‖.
Adriano (2008) showed that the culture of mendicancy or what he termed ―culture of begging‖ is exhibited by the Filipinos in various forms. Adriano cited street beggars as the most common form and even saw a worsening trend in this form of mendicancy. He described that in the past, begging ―used to be the last resort‖, but now, beggars even became more strategic in this occupation. This can be seen from street children and elderly who hop from one public vehicle to another to wipe footwear of passengers in exchange for coins, those who give away envelopes with a message asking for money, and there are even those who portray that they are from ethnic tribes (Badjao, for instance), and they either sing or dance while playing some improvised instrument, hoping that passengers will give them some money.
Debt of gratitude is another form of mendicancy exhibited by Filpinos (Adriano, 2008).
According to Behn Cervantes, a film director and activist, local politicians with selfish interests believe that the have-nots depend on the assistance of the haves, and these politicians take advantage of the debt of gratitude or utang na loob concept of Filipinos, thereby establishing a
―culture of patronage‖ (Adriano 2008). The constant loaning of local politicians from wealthy countries is another illustration of this phenomenon (Adriano 2008).
The remittances being send by Overseas Filipino Workers to their families is also another form of mendicancy (Adriano 2008). According to a study by the International Monetary Fund, a moral hazard posed by this phenomenon is that families are becoming dependent on these ON LUCK AND HOPE 17 remittances, as shown by family members who refuse to work even if they are already of working age (Adriano 2008).
Finally, Adriano cited dole-out mentality as a form of mendicancy that is promoted by local game shows. Jose R. Lacson Jr., a UP professor and an expert in Filipino Communicative
Behavior (FCB), said that game show contestants manifest the mindset called ―asa‖, which refers to ―hope and expectation‖ (Falamig 2010). Lacson said that this mindset ―manifests itself when confronted with situations with opportunities such as coming by occasions where one can get something for free or without doing much effort. Being part of game shows is one opportunity,‖
(Falamig 2010). In relation to this, economist Winston Conrad B. Padojinog said that game shows such as ―Willing Willie‖ have a strong emotional appeal to the poor because they have a strong desire to be freed from the conditions of material poverty (Falamig 2010).
By comparison, ―culture of dependency‖ or ―dependency culture‖ is defined as ―the phenomenon of granting help or aid then increasing the likelihood of the recipients being in adverse circumstances‖ (dictionary.reference.com, n.d.). This definition stresses the implications of the reinforcement of dole-out mentality on addressing poverty issues in the country. For instance, one anonymous source mentioned that game shows do not feature lessons on ―livelihood programs, entrepreneurship or microfinance‖, or those things that help people find sustainable ways of solving their economic problems (―Willie [and the] Poor‖, n.d.). According to an anonymous TV producer, game shows can be likened to prayers because they give hope, but at the same time they keep people from examining the ―real issue of unemployment‖ (Lorenzo
2008). Neal H. Cruz, a columnist, said that the ―handouts‖ offered by game shows provide ON LUCK AND HOPE 18 temporary comfort but they ―but strip people of their self-respect‖ (―Game Show Brings Death‖,
2006). The dole-out mentality being reinforced by game shows embeds these people in a culture of dependency and mendicancy that keeps them in poverty.
Analytical Framework
A. Conceptual Framework
Game Shows
These generally refer to ―a television show‖ wherein ―contestants compete for prizes or awards‖ through ―playing games of knowledge or chance‖ (―The Free Dictionary‖, n.d.). For the purpose of this research, the focus will be on local game shows that feature ―games of chance‖, or those that include gambling, as defined in the background chapter.
Dole-out mentality
The term ―dole-out‖ literally means ―[to] administer or bestow, as in small portions‖ (―The Free
Dictionary‖, n.d.). Dole-out mentality can be seen as a part of a larger cultural phenomenon, the so-called ―culture of mendicancy‖ or ―culture of dependency‖, and it is along these concepts that dole-out mentality will be defined in this paper.
Poverty
According to the Asian Development Bank (2006, p. 91), ―poverty is a deprivation of essential assets and opportunities to which every human is entitled.‖ Other concepts related to this definition include human poverty, which is ―the lack of essential human capabilities, notably literacy and nutrition‖; income poverty, which is ―the lack of sufficient income to meet minimum ON LUCK AND HOPE 19 consumption needs‖; and absolute poverty, which refers to ―the degree of poverty below which the minimal requirements for survival are not being met. This is a fixed measure in terms of a minimum calorific requirement plus essential nonfood components. While absolute poverty is often used interchangeably with extreme poverty, the meaning of the latter may vary, depending on local interpretations or calculations.‖ (ADB, 2006, p. 91)
According to Ortigas (2000), poverty is usually analyzed in economics ―in terms of low income and consumption‖; whereas, in sociology, poverty is analyzed in greater depth in terms of ―the social structures and processes that create, sustain and even deepen poverty‖ (Ortigas, 2000, p.
24-25). Sociology also tackles poverty in absolute and relative types. Absolute poverty pertains to ―subsistence below a minimum level of living standards, but usually goes even beyond that to highlight those lacking even the most basic needs for human survival, in particular, food‖
(Ortigas, 2000, p. 25). On the other hand, relative poverty shows ―a comparison between those at the bottom of the income deprivation scale and those at the top, and may generate among the poorest a felt sense of relative deprivation which may engender strong feelings of resentment among the poor‖ (Ortigas, 2000, p. 25). Absolute and relative poverty is also defined as follows
(encyclopedia.farlex.com, n.d.): ―Absolute poverty, where people lack the necessary food, clothing, or shelter to survive, can be distinguished from relative poverty, which has been defined as the inability of a citizen to participate fully in economic terms in the society in which he or she lives.‖ It is said that absolute poverty is commonly persist in poor countries and is characterized by ―poor nutrition, short life expectancy, and high levels of infant mortality‖ and may also be caused by the country‘s lack of resources and unequal wealth distribution
(encyclopedia.farlex.com, n.d.). ON LUCK AND HOPE 20
In this context, poverty is not merely viewed in economic terms or ―in terms of low income and consumption‖ (Ortigas, 2000, p. 24), but more viewed in sociological terms, or involving ―the social structures and processes that create, sustain and even deepen poverty‖ (Ortigas, 2000, p.
24-25). For the purpose of this research, poverty will be defined as the lack of access to basic human needs such as food, clothing, shelter and employment. This definition is based on the main reasons why Filipinos join game shows, which are mentioned in the background chapter.
The analysis of the primary data will also be based on this definition.
“Strategic suffering”
This is a term devised by Filipino sociologist Jonathan Ong to refer to the people‘s agency as exhibited when they join game shows (Valisno & Marcelo, 2011). According to him, ―strategic suffering‖ involves ―physical labor‖, ―emotional labor‖ and even risking one‘s life (Valisno &
Marcelo, 2011). Going to the TV studio and lining up for days, sometimes even without food, illustrates physical labor. Emotional labor is when contestants cry and confess their hardships to get sympathy (and dole-outs) from the game show host.
ON LUCK AND HOPE 21
The relationship among the concepts can be illustrated as follows:
POVERTY
- Lack of access to basic needs such as food, clothing, shelter - Lack of opportunities for employment
Criticism on ―dole-out GAME SHOW PATRONAGE mentality‖: LUCK and HOPE
compels the poor to engage in - Translation of RATINGS ―STRATEGIC SUFFERING‖, into PROFITS for TV which involves stations airing these game - ―physical labor‖ shows - ―emotional labor‖
GAME SHOW TRENDS Promotion of dole-out mentality through: - Proliferation of GAMES OF - Games of chance CHANCE (increased dependence on LUCK) - Portrayal as PHILANTHROPISTS - Giving HOPE
ON LUCK AND HOPE 22
B. Theoretical Framework
The “Dominant-Ideology” Model of the Mass Media
The ―dominant-ideology model‖ portrays the media as an instrument of the dominant social class and is thus used by this class to make the masses conform to their traditions or interests, or what
Heywood termed as ―political passivity‖ (2007, p. 233). The Marxist version of this model espouses the theory of Gramsci, which states that capitalism is perpetuated through the media, which in turn are influenced or controlled by powerful media corporations. Thus, the ideas presented by the media are dependent upon or in conformity with those of the bourgeoisie. For the purpose of this paper, this model can be viewed as a consolidation of the concepts of hegemony and ISA, as a demonstration that game shows are part of a larger scheme of power- relations in the local mass media. This seeks to explain how game show producers and staff behave in support of the interests of the dominant class.
Heywood also cited the version of this model by Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman in their work entitled Manufacturing Consent in 1994 (italics retained). According to them, the media uses five ―filters‖ to distort or alter news coverage, namely:
1.) The economic interests of the media owners
2.) The preferences of sponsors and advertisers
3.) Obtaining information from ―agents of power such as the government and business-
backed think-tanks‖ (Heywood, 2007, p. 234)
4.) Control of journalists through threats and pressure ON LUCK AND HOPE 23
5.) The pervasive influence of capitalism, in the form of competitive markets and
consumerism
Antonio Gramsci’s Theory of Hegemony
This term was used by Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci to illustrate how the dominant social class rules over the others beyond the political and economic spheres; they use their ability to make the subordinated classes see this stratification as natural. Thus, the dominant class apparently rules by way of consent and not by coercion (Chandler, n.d.). Burke (1999, 2005) defines Gramsci‘s concept of hegemony as ―the permeation throughout society of an entire system of values, attitudes, beliefs and morality that has the effect of supporting the status quo in power relations‖. Burke further explains that in this case, the term hegemony can be thought of as an ―organising principle‖ which is ―diffused by the process of socialisation into every area of daily life.‖ As people internalize this principle, it eventually becomes ―common sense‖, thus making the domination of the elite appear normal or ―natural‖ (Boggs, 1976, p. 39, in Burke,
1999, 2005).
Louis Althusser’s Concept of Ideological State Apparatuses
This term was devised by Louis Althusser to denote the ―more pervasive‖ nature of ideology
(Felluga, 2011). In particular, Althusser differentiated the ideological state apparatuses (or
ISAs) from the repressive state apparatuses; the latter consist of the police, the army, the government, and other organizations that operate by force or ―violence‖ (Althusser 2001: 96 in
Felluga 2011). On the other hand, the ISAs consist of the following: ―the religious ISA; the family ISA; the legal ISA; the political ISA; the trade union ISA; the communications ISA; [and] the cultural ISA‖ (Felluga, 2011). ON LUCK AND HOPE 24
In this context, game shows are viewed as products of the local television industry which in turn functions as part of Althusser‘s communications ISA.
C. Methodology
Data Collection
Data collection was divided into primary and secondary data gathering. Primary data was gathered through key informant interviews and a focused group discussion:
A. Five key informant interviews (KII):
Professor Rolando B. Tolentino, Ph.D., Dean of the College of Mass Communication, UP
Diliman
Professor Teresa Lorena Jopson of the Department of Social Sciences, College of Arts
and Sciences, UP Manila
Professor Jalton Taguibao, MPM, of the Department of Political Science, UP Diliman
Professor Antonio P. Contreras, Ph.D., of the Department of Political Science, De La
Salle University
Art Manlapat of Bayan Muna
B. An in-depth interview with a respondent from Sta. Ana, Paco, Manila
C. A focus group discussion (FGD) with participants from Brgy. 676, Zone 73, District 5,
Ermita, Manila, supervised by Hon. Lazaro De Leon, Baranggay Chairman (FGD started ON LUCK AND HOPE 25
with 8 members but two participants had to leave in the middle of the discussion, thus
leaving the FGD with a final number of 6 members)
Secondary data gathering, on the other hand, was done through online and library research.
D. Research Design
Specific research Data needed Data source Data gathering questions methods
1. What are game Definition of ―game News articles Online research
shows? shows‖; examples of
local game shows
2. How did the local History and News articles, books Online and library
game show development of game research
industry develop? show industry in the
Philippines
3. How popular are Commonly watched News articles, books, Online and library
game shows in the game shows, airtime game show viewers, research, KII and
Philippines? schedules, reasons for communications and FGD
watching and joining media experts
game shows
4. What is dole-out Definition of dole-out News articles, books, Online and library
mentality? mentality; factors that communications and research, KII
reinforce the media experts ON LUCK AND HOPE 26
development of dole-
out mentality (cultural
and economic);
features of game
shows that reinforce
dole-out mentality
among the masses
5. What is ―strategic Definition of News articles, game Online and library
suffering‖? ―strategic suffering‖ show viewers, research, KII and
and its manifestations communications and FGD
among game show media experts
patrons
Data analysis will be done through triangulation by method and by source.
Data Presentation
A. On Gauging Game Show Popularity
Based from both primary and secondary data, the most watched game shows include Wowowee,
Willing-Willie, Eat Bulaga, Will Time Big Time and Manny Many Prizes. When asked why they watch game shows, 50% of the FGD participants answered that they are entertained by these shows, or ―nakakalibang‖, in vernacular. When asked for their opinion on why people join game shows, 75% of FGD participants said that these people want to try their luck, or ―nagbabaka- sakali‖. 70% or 4 of the participants have already joined game shows. On the other hand, key ON LUCK AND HOPE 27 informant interviewees (except for Professor Taguibao) said that people join game shows as an alternative to way out of poverty because these shows provide opportunity to win prizes.
As likewise established in the RRL, the FGD participants believe that most people who join local game shows are poor. Data also shows that the type of poverty experienced by contestants (as portrayed or rendered in game shows) are absolute in nature, which refers to ―subsistence below a minimum level of living standards, but usually goes even beyond that to highlight those lacking even the most basic needs for human survival, in particular, food‖ (Ortigas 2000: 25).
Based on primary data, contestants usually complain about sickness in the family, lack of access to healthcare, not being able to eat three meals a day (answered by respondent from Sta. Ana), and unemployment, among others. In particular, Dr. Antonio Contreras of the Political Science
Department of De La Salle University Manila said that these reasons are directly observable that one no longer needs to validate them:
―They [stories] are the same. They are almost the same. No money, no medical care, Eat
Bulaga [just like Willie Revillame‘s game shows] also does house-to-house visits, of
course they would choose depressed [areas]…no livelihood, [and] it‘s just like that.
These are typical, generic stories. You don‘t need to identify, such things are common.‖
(Translated, personal communication, September 26, 2011)
B. On Dole-Out Mentality
Data shows that the game shows are seen as philanthropic agents, especially by the poor.
According to Participant B, the main purpose of game shows is to really help the poor;
Participant H on the other hand, gave emphasis on game shows hosted by Willie Revillame ON LUCK AND HOPE 28
(Channel 2‘s Wowowee, changed into Willing Willie, and changed again to Will Time Big Time now shown in Channel 5). He said that Revillame‘s shows are unique because their target is to help the poor. Dr. Contreras and Participant A also cited the segment of Eat Bulaga wherein they portray charity work by going to depressed areas and baranggays.
According to Dean Rolando B. Tolentino (2011), the main motivation for the poor to join game shows is the fact that ―traditional modes for poverty alleviation‖, such as ―healthcare, housing‖ and the like are inaccessible for the poor. Dean Rolando Tolentino described how poverty can make people dependent on game show dole-outs:
―…If you have a job, you will not join game shows…well, if you have a job that is
enough to pay for the hospital bills, or overdue rent, you will not join game shows
because you have the means. So you join game shows because you have no other options
left. So this is dole-out mentality. You just fall in line [at TV game show stations]‖
(personal communication, September 9, 2011)
In a similar manner, Dr. Contreras explained that ―…if people are well-to-do, if people‘s basic economic needs are met, the pressure to use the game shows as an opportunity to get money will be lessened,‖ (personal communication, September 26, 2011).
As affirmed both by key informant interviewees and FGD participants, the usual stories about the poverty of contestants tell about lack of access to these basic needs and services.
ON LUCK AND HOPE 29
When asked about what they feel when game show contestants narrate their experiences on poverty, 4 out of 7 remaining FGD participants claimed that they feel sympathy for the contestants; they said that the stories are ―nakakadala‖ (―emotionally touching‖). Dr. Contreras shared the same opinion when he answered that he is ―saddened‖ by such scenes, because the contestants ―have to go to that extent…to show the public their misery [which we usually hide]… [these are like] acts of desperation‖ (translated, personal communication, September 26,
2011).
When asked if they are convinced by these stories, participants claim however that they are aware that not all of these stories are true; some pretend to be poor to get prizes from the show.
Professor Jalton Taguibao said that some are ―overacting‖; the respondent from Sta. Ana said that there are some contestants who would cry at the very start of their exposure in the game show.
When asked of their opinion on why contestants allow themselves to be made fun of or mocked in game shows, or allow their personal problems to be publicized, the common answer among
FGD participants and 3 KIIs is that these people no longer mind this because their main objective is to win prizes to address their immediate needs. According to Prof. Taguibao, ―They are willing to trade whatever they have… [whatever] they know of for whatever utility they might get.‖
(personal communication, September 22, 2011) Dr. Contreras stressed that this is so because they are desperate, while Professor Teresa Jopson stated that ―They would do anything to address their subsistence living.‖
ON LUCK AND HOPE 30
As to whether game shows really help in solving the problems of the poor, all four KIIs, three of the six remaining FGD participants, and the respondent from Sta. Ana answered that this is not so. For the KIIs, game shows provide only temporary solutions to the problems of the poor. For
Participants A, F, and H, game shows help the TV stations more than they help the poor.
When asked on their opinion on game shows claim to help the poor, the key informant interviewees and the respondent from Sta. Ana generally answered that this is just plain propaganda; three FGD participants, on the other hand, affirmed that game shows, with emphasis on Willie Revillame‘s shows, are really aimed at helping the poor.
Surprisingly, when asked about the Wowowee stampede in 2006, all interviewees answered that the TV show‘s management was mainly responsible for the tragedy, mainly because they were not able to establish security measures for controlling the crowd; Dr. Contreras and Prof. Jopson cited poverty as one cause of the tragedy.
On the issue of Jan-Jan, a boy made to execute a macho dance despite tears in his eyes (in an episode of Willing Willie early in 2011), only Participant H raised the point that poverty was a reason why the boy was compelled to dance.
C. On Poverty Alleviation
Key informant interviewees and FGD participants were asked about their opinion on the role of game shows in improving, maintaining or worsening the living conditions of the poor. All key informant interviewees answered that game shows do not really contribute to poverty alleviation ON LUCK AND HOPE 31 in the country and are only providing short-term solutions. On the other hand, 50% (3 out of the
6 remaining participants) of the FGD participants claimed that the help rendered by game shows are little compared to the profits the TV shows earn. This is supported by the common opinion of the KIIs that helping the poor is not really the intention of game shows; Professor Taguibao called this propaganda of game shows as mere ―press release‖ (personal communication,
September 22, 2011).
Data Analysis
A. Holding on to luck
Both primary and secondary data reveal that game shows promote dole-out mentality through the concept of luck, not only among the poor but among the masses in general. According to sociology professor Dr. Manuel Bonifacio, ―games of chance‖ that are featured in game shows
―are oriented toward baka sakali (a maybe)‖ (Lorenzo, 2008). Indeed, when asked about their opinion on why people join game shows, majority of the FGD participants said that these people want to try their luck, or ―nagbabaka-sakali‖. According to Luis Teodoro of the Center for Media
Freedom and Responsibility, ―The Filipino work ethic is not very strong,‖ (Lorenzo, 2008), and the kinds of games featured in these shows reinforces the people‘s dependence on luck. From this statement, it can be inferred that such kinds of games discourage Filipinos from working hard to improve their standard of living, hence the danger of developing in them dole-out mentality. In this context, dole-out mentality is a type of mendicancy wherein people depend on games of chance, with hopes that good luck will change their situation (Adriano, 2008).
ON LUCK AND HOPE 32
Games of chance provide the poor an easy way to win the prizes. According to Luis Teodoro, while it is natural for people to hope to get something without exerting much effort, game shows reinforce the aspect of Filipino culture that is characterized by ―reliance on luck, connections, and the divine‖ (Lorenzo, 2008). These game shows tap on the supernaturalistic nature of
Filipinos, which generally pertains to the belief that ―success (or failure) is undeserved‖ (Espiritu et al., 1977, p. 71) and is synonymous with fatalism, which refers to the belief that one has no control over things (Santos, n.d.). This nature of Filpinos is characterized by a number of attitudes such as bahala na, suerte, malas and panalangin, among others (Espiritu et al., 1977).
These cluster of supernaturalistic attitudes underpin the concept of dole-out mentality. Dr.
Contreras‘s definition of the ―culture of mendicancy‖ is synonymous with the concept of dole- out mentality: ―That habit of begging, without exerting effort. It‘s like gambling, those who bet in lottery‖ (A. Contreras, personal communication, September 26, 2011). As mentioned by
Lorenzo (2008), the chances of winning in lotto are very slim, but people still buy tickets because they are hoping that their twenty-peso tickets will win the jackpot prize.
This reliance on luck can be illustrated by the following statements from patrons of a TV5 game show (Valisno & Marcelo, 2011). Marina Navarro, a 55-year old housewife from Pasay City, said in an interview that she goes to TV5 and falls in line ―as often as [she] can‖ because ―you will never know when you will be lucky‖ (Valisno & Marcelo, 2011). Dolores Nepomuceno, a
46-year old mother from Capas, Tarlac, even borrowed money to be able to bring her daughter to an audition at TV5; however her daughter did not win. When asked how she would repay her debts, she answered, ―We will work something out. I am not worried about having debts. What is ON LUCK AND HOPE 33 more important is that we tried our luck. Maybe next time, we will be luckier.‖ (Valisno and
Marcelo, 2011).
B. Not just luck and prizes
However, while it is showed that majority of game show participants and viewers are poor, poverty is not the only reason why people join game shows. According to Dr. Violeta
Villaroman-Bautista, a clinical psychologist, ―get-rich-quick schemes‖ featured in game shows appeal to certain personality types: ―The people who go for these activities also are risk-takers, venturesome people…some(one) looking for some new experience‖ (Lorenzo, 2008). Professor
Jalton Taguibao, on the other hand, said that there are many utilities that people, not only the poor, can get from game shows. He explains,
―They [contestants] are willing to trade off things like…privacy, things that they know
of, for whatever utility they can get out of the game show. Whether the utility is in the
form of money or, or kind, or airtime, or to see their favorite actor…because there are
different utilities, not only money… it‘s just not the impoverished that is in TV game
shows. What if you are part of the middle-class or you are rich but you really idolize the
host? See? You will join, you‘ll exert all efforts to be part of the show,‖ (J. Taguibao,
personal communication, September 22, 2011).
In addition, not only poor people believe in luck. As mentioned by Dr. Contreras (2011), even rich people take chances on lotto. Dean Rolando Tolentino of the College of Mass
Communications in University of the Philippines Diliman also mentioned that being poor is not a ON LUCK AND HOPE 34 criteria for joining game shows: ―You cannot be forbidden to join game shows just because you are rich or a middle-class‖ (personal communication, September 9, 2011).
This is just to show that poverty is not the sole motivation for people to watch and join game shows; however, for the purpose of this paper, emphasis is placed on how game shows attract the poor through the concept of luck.
C. Giving hope and banking on the poor’s desperation
Aside from the idea of luck, another way by which game shows promote dole-out mentality among the poor is by giving them hope. This kind of hope can be reflected from Willie
Revillame‘s statement which was released in 2011: ―The program aims to provide a venue for everyone to show their talents, tell their stories, and make their dreams come true,‖ (Valisno &
Marcelo, 2011). The message was not very different from what Revillame said in an interview regarding his liability on the Wowowee stampede in 2006: ―We just wanted to make them happy…In our own little way…we are helping the government. Every day, jobless Filipinos have [made] a career out of joining our game show. Is it a sin to give people hope? ‖ (―Game
Show Brings Death‖, 2006)
This inculcation of hope among the people, and among the poor, in particular, paves the way for these game shows to exploit the latter. Such exploitation arises from the fact that only a few will be given the chance to win in these game shows (Falamig, 2010). According to Dean Rolando
Tolentino, the main motivation for the poor to join game shows is the fact that ―traditional modes for poverty alleviation‖, such as ―healthcare, housing‖ and the like are inaccessible for the poor, ON LUCK AND HOPE 35 and this reflects the inability of the government to address this problem. Because of government failure to provide for social services and employment, game shows become an alternative for those who lack access to these (Falamig, 2010). As Dean Tolentino stated it:
―Game shows reinforce this legitimate claim through illegitimate fantasy, the fact that the
chance of winning and getting the jackpot prize is limited to some…it proves that there is
very little promise of economic fulfillment for the poor and marginalized in the country.
Their recourse to social mobility is not through government efforts but through their own
initiatives like joining game shows.‖ (Falamig, 2010)
By comparison, Professor Teresa Jopson of the Department of Social Sciences, University of the
Philippines Manila, said that ―Game shows could be likened to a modern opium of the masses‖
(personal communication, September 2011) in the sense that they ―commodify fantasies.‖ She explained that:
―Instead of giving them useful information, game shows are actually propagating
ignorance. It is in this form that this is a hostility that deprives the public to react
accordingly to reality.‖ (T. Jopson, personal communication, September 2011)
This notion of ―fantasy‖ as explained by Dean Tolentino and Professor Jopson implies that game shows provide an elusive solution to people‘s economic problems. The fact that game shows do not offer a real solution to the problems of the marginalized renders these shows as exploitive, particularly of the poor. As Professor Taguibao (2011) said, the most that game shows can offer is a short-term relief from material poverty. Winston Conrad Padojinog adds that game show popularity among the television viewers and advertisers reflect the fact that game shows were ON LUCK AND HOPE 36 successful in capitalizing on the strong desire of the majority of the population (Falamig, 2010), that is, to improve their economic situation. Dr. Diokno illustrated how the Wowowee stampede in 2006 manifested this desperation among the poor:
―People were trampling over dead bodies and all they cared about was their ticket…I
think that is the worst thing about poverty. It dehumanizes you. Don‘t expect people who
are looking for their next meal to be rational about things.‖ (Fajardo III, 2011)
In the same way, chief of police Vidal Querol was also quoted regarding the incident:
―The dead were lined up on the streets, but people still did not want to go home. It was
bizarre. They persisted in entering the PhilSports Arena and demanded that the show go
on. Many people were still waiting for tickets although bodies were piling up.‖
(Michaels, 2006)
Those who went to the anniversary special of Wowowee were mostly from the urban poor areas in Manila and far-off provinces (Michaels, 2006).
On the other hand, Jayeel Cornelio, a faculty at the Ateneo de Manila University, said that game shows alone are not responsible for instilling this sense of hope among the people; rather, this phenomenon is embedded in a more complex ―culture of dependency‖ , the roots of which can be found by looking at Philippine colonial history (Valisno & Marcelo, 2011). According to
Cornelio,
―People do not flock to [game shows] to beg, but to hope. Whether this hope is real or
not is not the issue. The possibility of hope is enough…. All these manifestations, Mr.
Revillame included, thrive in a culture of dependency. [These personalities] are products ON LUCK AND HOPE 37
of the system. If it weren‘t Willie Revillame, it would be someone else.‖ (Valisno &
Marcelo, 2011)
D. Dole-out mentality versus “strategic suffering”
It has been shown how game shows can promote dole-out mentality among the poor by reinforcing reliance on luck and by giving hope. This claim is laid on the assumption that the poor are especially vulnerable to relying on luck and hope because of their strong desire to be freed from material poverty (Padojinog in Falamig, 2010). As stated by UP Professor Jose R.
Lacson Jr., ―Asa [hope and expectation] is bigger by magnitude when you have less so the game show participants are more expecting than others,‖ (in Falamig, 2010). Furthermore, according to
Dr. Bonifacio (in Lorenzo, 2008), the restricted employment opportunities in the country partially account for the popularity of game shows in the country. Since the poor have poor access to basic needs, such as education, they lack qualifications to be employed to certain jobs
(Lorenzo, 2008).
This inculcation of fatalism (belief in luck) and ―asa‖ or ―hope and expectation‖ (Lacson Jr., in
Falamig, 2010) can be seen as the people‘s ―coping mechanisms‖ amidst poverty (Lorenzo,
2008). This phenomenon can be explained by the ―Culture of Poverty‖, a social theory proposed by Oscar Lewis, which was first introduced in his work entitled Five Families: Mexican Case
Studies in the Culture of Poverty in 1959 (italics retained from source). According to this theory, poverty does not merely pertain to the absence or lack of money, but also pertains to the need for coping mechanisms or ―adaptive strategies‖ to deal with or survive from ―persistent poverty‖ ON LUCK AND HOPE 38
(Philen, 2007). These adaptive mechanisms in turn result to ―subcultural differences in patterns of living…perspectives and worldview‖ (Philen, 2007).
This sense of adaptation provided by game shows is illustrated by the following statement of
Jayeel Cornelio, a faculty from the Ateneo de Manila University:
―[Will] Time Big Time is a demonstration of the reality of poverty but at the same time,
the glamor of the show conceals it. You can be happy in the midst of poverty. It‘s a
perfect microcosm of Philippine society.‖ (Valisno & Marcelo, 2011)
According to Philen (2007), while these ―adaptive strategies‖ usually result to the perpetuation of poverty, they are not necessarily the root cause of poverty; he claims that it is on this point that the theory is misinterpreted or criticized, because some take the ―Culture of Poverty‖ as a set of norms or behavior unique or attributable to the poor, making them worthy of the blame for their situation.
Dole-out mentality, generally defined in this paper as the dependence on give-aways or help of others, gives a picture of the Filipino poor as indolent and lacking strategy in facing poverty. An important clarification of this paper is that, while game shows have the capacity to promote dole- out mentality among the poor, this does not necessarily renders the poor as totally incapable of seeing other ―legitimate‖ ways to cope with their situation. The term legitimate here means refer to those socially acceptable or conventional ways of addressing poverty, such as looking for a job, because the poor are also associated with crimes such as prostitution and stealing, which are also considered as their ways of dealing with poverty (Tolentino, 2011). As explained by Dr. ON LUCK AND HOPE 39
Contreras, the poor cannot be totally blamed for their predicament because they usually have no choice but to resort to alternative ways such as joining game shows.
―…sometimes, especially when you get to socialize with the poor, [you will see that] they
are left with no other choice. They persevere, but there is really lack of opportunity, you
cannot say that they are indolent because even those who work in the factory [for
instance] really receive low wages. You will borrow money. You will engage in
prostitution. Right? You cannot totally blame them because they are not totally indolent.
Before, that was the view…but no; they try hard to work but [their] wages are not
enough‖ (personal communication, September 26, 2011).
By comparison, Art Manlapat of Bayan Muna (2011) mentioned that games shows also create the conditions which compel the poor to patronize them. For instance, game shows, especially those which were hosted by Willie Revillame, indirectly tell the audiences that by just sharing their problems or desperate stories, they can receive ―assistance‖ in the form of cash prizes and other dole-outs. Using Willing Willie as an example, he said that:
―[The show] becomes entertaining, because participants are more open [in expressing
their problems], and now Willie appears as the problem-solver…. The game show lays
the notion that the only solution to poverty is to join Willing Willie.‖ (Translated,
personal communication, October 27, 2011)
Dr. Contreras further adds that aside from this lack of employment opportunities and very low wages, rise in commodity prices and lack of access to basic social services all contribute to place the poor in a desperate situation. In relation to Lewis‘s theory, such conditions compel the poor ON LUCK AND HOPE 40 to look for alternative ways and develop certain strategies that may not necessarily bring them out of poverty, but they are nevertheless not totally responsible for their fate because poverty is seen here as something that is structural or something that the poor do not have control over
(Taguibao, 2011).
The statements above show that the poor‘s indulgence in game shows can be seen as something positive, in that they have found a way of dealing with the problem, albeit not sustainable, rather than allowing themselves to die without doing anything.
Jayeel Cornelio‘s critical analysis of Will Time Big Time, a game show of TV5 hosted by Willie
Revillame, shows how game show participation is adapted by the people as a strategy against poverty. According to him, it is important to consider the role of both the media and the audiences in coming up with a more comprehensive analysis of the game show patronage. While it was explained earlier that the concept of dole-out mentality in this paper is not intended to put the blame on the poor, Cornelio on the other hand argued that it is likewise ―myopic‖ to put the blame on media, particularly on game shows, because both media and audience play a crucial role in the phenomenon. He said:
―To blame media is not necessarily wrong but myopic because it assumes that the
audience is passive…These people know how to navigate conditions of poverty, which is
different from mendicancy‖ (Valisno & Marcelo, 2011).
At this point, Cornelio introduces the term ―strategic suffering‖ to refer to how people adapt to poverty by joining game shows. The term ―strategic suffering‖ was borrowed by Cornelio from ON LUCK AND HOPE 41 his friend Jonathan Ong, ―a Filipino sociologist at Hong Kong Baptist University who is also a doctorate student at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom‖ (Valisno & Marcelo,
2011).
Valisno and Marcelo (2011) cited Ong‘s thesis entitled ―The Mediation of Suffering: Classed
Moralities of Television Audiences in the Philippines‖, which looks into ―the ways in which suffering, tragedy, and natural disaster are mediated by Philippine television and how audiences make sense of others‘ suffering as well as their own.‖ The thesis has a chapter entitled
―Entertainment: Playing with Pity‖ which discusses ―Wowowee‖, a game show aired by ABS-
CBN Channel 2 from 2005 to 2010, and was also hosted by Willie Revillame (Valisno &
Marcelo, 2011). Valisno and Marcelo (2011) cite Ong‘s e-mailed interview with the
BusinessWorld in which he provided a summary of his main points in his thesis.
Ong‘s (2011) first point is that the game show‘s audience is ―active and diverse‖, and that they have the capability to weigh their purposes for joining game shows. As mentioned earlier, money and prizes are not the only reasons why people join game shows. For Ong, joining game shows can be a way of a person to connect with others that are experiencing the same hardships in life, such as poverty. Using Ong‘s words:
―[The decision to join Revillame‘s game shows is] also being seen and heard over other
people who also experience great hardship in their lives. They are fully aware of the
stakes of the game: to be selected means having a chance at ‗instant‘ material gain that
the media are able -- and expected -- to dispense more than any other institution in
Philippine public life‖ (Valisno & Marcelo, 2011). ON LUCK AND HOPE 42
Ong‘s second point is that critics of the local game show patronage, such as academics and members of the middle- and upper-classes based their judgments on foreign television formats, making their claims against the poor devoid of local context. In connection with this, Valisno and Marcelo (2011) said that ―These critics overlook the agency (a sociological term referring to an individual‘s ability to act in the world), risk-taking, resourcefulness, and hard work exhibited by people during the process of joining game shows.‖ These traits which critics fail to consider characterize Ong‘s concept of ―strategic suffering‖, which, according to him, involves ―physical labor‖, ―emotional labor‖ and even risking one‘s life (Valisno & Marcelo, 2011). Going to the
TV studio and lining up for days, sometimes even without food, illustrates physical labor.
Emotional labor is when contestants cry and confess their hardships to get sympathy (and dole- outs) from the game show host - what Dean Tolentino termed as the need to determine who is
―morally upright for redemption‖ (personal communication, September 9, 2011). The Wowowee stampede in 2006 shows how lives were lost for the sake of joining the game show.
Indeed, Ong‘s concept of ―strategic suffering‖ criticizes the negative image that the concept
―dole-out mentality‖ gives to the poor. Dole-out mentality can even be seen as part of the poor‘s
―strategic suffering‖ or way of adapting to poverty and other hardships.
ON LUCK AND HOPE 43
Conclusion
Local game shows have been criticized because of their tendency to promote dole-out mentality among the Filipino masses, especially among the poor. In particular, dole-out mentality is promoted by game shows by inculcating fatalism (reliance on luck) and hope among the poor.
The structural nature of poverty makes the poor especially vulnerable to believe in luck and have fervent hopes to have a better life through easier means. But while game shows can influence the poor‘s outlook on poverty, this does not necessarily mean that the poor are passive enough to discount all other ways of combating poverty. Game shows can inculcate dole-out mentality among the poor only to some extent. In addition, while majority of local game show patrons
(viewers and participants) are poor, prizes are not the only reason why people join game shows.
However, for the purpose of this paper, emphasis was given on the motivation of the poor patrons.
Oscar Lewis‘s ―Culture of Poverty‖ Theory, Jayeel Cornelio‘s media-audience analysis and
Jonathan Ong‘s concept of ―strategic suffering‖ give us a critical view of the topic and allows for a deeper understanding of game show patronage in the Philippines.
ON LUCK AND HOPE 44
References
Constantino, R. (1985). Synthetic culture and development. Quezon City: Foundation for
Nationalist Studies
Del Mundo, C. (1986). Philippine mass media: a book of readings. Metro Manila,
Communication Foundation for Asia.
Espiritu, S. C., Hunt, C. L., Lacar, L.Q., Quisumbing, L. R., & Hollnsteiner, M. R. (1977).
Sociology in the new Philippine setting. Quezon City: Alemar-Phoenix Publishing House,
Inc.
Heywood, A. (2007). Politics (Third Edition). New York: Palgrave Macmillan
Merriam-Webster‘s Pocket Dictionary (1995). Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Ortigas, C. D. (2000). Poverty revisited: A social psychological approach to community
empowerment. Quezon City: Ateneo De Manila University Press
Web Sources
Adriano, J. (2008, July 8). Mendicancy in the Philippines: Is a culture of begging on the rise?
Retrieved from http://english.safe-democracy.org/2008/07/08/mendicancy-in-the-
philippines/
Althusser, L. (n.d.). Lenin and philosophy and other essays. Trans. Ben Brewster. New York:
Monthly Review P, 2001. (Cited in Felluga, D.; January 31, 2011)
Asian Development Bank (2006). Poverty and development indicators: Statistics glossary.
Retrieved from http://www.adb.org/Documents/Handbooks/Analysis-
Processes/appendix01.pdf
Boggs, C. (1976) Gramsci’s Marxism. London: Pluto Press. (Cited in Burke, B.: 1999, 2005) ON LUCK AND HOPE 45
Burke, B. (1999, 2005). Antonio Gramsci, schooling and education. The Encyclopedia of
Informal Education. Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-gram.htm#cite
Business World Online. (2011, July 11). Manny‘s next big fight is a TV game show. Retrieved
http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Arts&Leisure&title=Manny%E2%80
%99s-next-big-fight-is-a-TV-game-show&id=34530
Carpio, A. A. (2011, April 16). Mendicancy of thought. Retrieved from
http://philippinesfreepress.com.ph/2011/04/12/mendicancy-of-thought/
Chandler, D. (n.d.). Gramsci and hegemony. Retrieved from
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/marxism/marxism10.html
Chandler, D. (n.d.). Marxist Media Theory. Retrieved from
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/marxism/marxism03.html
Daffon, T. J. (2006, May 21). The ‗localization‘ of foreign TV shows. The Philippine Star.
Retrieved http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=337694
Dependency culture. (n.d.). Dictionary Reference online. Retrieved from
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dependency+culture
Dole-out. (n.d.). The Free Dictionary online. Retrieved from
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dole+out
Dryedmangoez.wordpress.com. (2012, February 9). How ABS-CBN brought about the
resurgence of Eat Bulaga. Retrieved from
http://dryedmangoez.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/how-abs-cbn-brought-about-the-
resurgence-of-eat-bulaga/
Fajardo, R. P. (2011, November). Game show stampede illustrates new face of Philippine
poverty—Diokno. The UP Newsletter 32(11). Retrieved from ON LUCK AND HOPE 46
http://akane.upd.edu.ph/upnewsletter2.php?i=104&pg=113&pgidx=&pgmax=1&issue=8
4
Falamig, D. F. (2010, December 31). Game shows and the economy. Retrieved from
http://www.bworldonline.com/Research/populareconomics.php?id=0189
Felluga, D. (2011, January 31). Modules on Althusser: On Ideological State Apparatuses.
Introductory Guide to Critical Theory. Purdue U. Retrieved from
http://www.cla.purdue.edu/english/theory/marxism/modules/althusserISAs.html
FNRI. (n.d.). FNRI investigates delivery system and social marketing of locally processed
supplementary foods. Retrieved from
http://www.fnri.dost.gov.ph/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=702, 5 March
2012
Game of chance. (n.d.). The Free Dictionary online. Retrieved from
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/game+of+chance
Isiswomen. (2010, April 3).Game show brings death in the Philippines: Media corporate
responsibility questioned in the ―Wowowee‖. Retrieved from
http://www.isiswomen.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=68
IBON Foundation Inc. (2011, January 14-15). Birdtalk Midyear 2011: Failing Economy,
Growing Disenchantment. Retrieved from http://ibon.org/includes/birdtalk/IBON-
%20Nat%20sit%20econ%20%201107-18.pdf
Lorenzo, I. (2008, January 31). Game on–or off? Retrieved from http://pcij.org/stories/game-on-
or-off/
Marocharim. (n.d.). Willie [and the] poor. Retrieved from
http://www.marocharim.com/2011/04/11/willie-and-the-poor ON LUCK AND HOPE 47
McGeown, K. (2011, June 10). Philippines game shows: Abuse or entertainment? Retrieved
from http://deadheroessociety.tumblr.com/post/6356827027/philippines-game-shows-
abuse-or-entertainment
Michaels, F. (2006, February 16). Philippines: Fatal game-show stampede—an exploitation of
social despair. World Socialist Web Site. Retrieved from
http://wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/phil-f16.shtml
NAFRI. (n.d.). Participation: A key element of sustainable development. Retrieved from
http://www.nafri.org.la/document/sourcebook/Sourcebook_eng/Volume1/29_participatio
n_calub.pdf, 5 March 2012
Pertierra A. (n.d.). Television and consumer culture: Examples from Cuba and the Philippines.
Retrieved from http://www.paclas.org/PAPERS/Pertierra.pdf
Philen, R. (2007, March). Oscar Lewis and the culture of poverty. Accessed July 4, 2011, from
http://robertphilen.blogspot.com/2007/03/oscar-lewis-and-culture-of-poverty.html
Popular. (1995). Merriam-Webster‘s Pocket Dictionary (1995). Massachusetts: Merriam-
Webster, Inc.
Poverty (n.d.). The Free Dictionary online. Retrieved from
http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/poverty
Quintos, N. (2011, May 12). Randy Santiago defends ‗Happy Yipee Yehey‘ against critics.
Accessed June 27, 2011 from http://www.push.com.ph/features/3246/randy-santiago-
defends-happy-yipee-yehey-against-critics/
Racoma, J. A. (2008, February 5). The Filipino game show mentality. Retrieved from
http://racoma.com.ph/archives/the-filipino-game-show-mentality ON LUCK AND HOPE 48
Rating. (n.d.). The Business Dictionary online. Retrieved from
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/rating.html
Red, I. V. (2006, February). [Philippine] Game shows, poverty, and tragedy. Manila Standard
Today. Retrieved from http://povertynewsblos.blogspot.com/2006/02/philippines-game-
shows-poverty-and.html
Salamat, M. (2010, April 4). Because making fun of a poor child sells? Retrieved from
http://bulatlat.com/main/2011/04/04/because-making-fun-of-a-poor-child-sells/
Santos, J.M.C. (n.d.). Globalization and Tradition: Paradoxes in Philippine Tradition and
Culture. Retrieved from http://archive.waccglobal.org/wacc/content/pdf/1143
Valisno, J. O. & Marcelo, S. L. (2011, November 17). Game shows and the culture of
dependency. Retrieved from
http://www.bworldonline.com/weekender/content.php?id=41808
_____. (n.d.). Understanding vulnerability. Retrieved from
http://www.globalcrisissolutions.org/libraries/understanding_vulnerability.pdf, 5 March
2012