An Analysis of the Poor's Agency in Game Show Participation Annjela Luz R
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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.