Communication 101

For The Bohol Tribune

In This Our Journey

NESTOR MANIEBO PESTELOS

I have assumed all along that politicians, as well as the rest of us who consider it our duty to comment on what they say, know the basics of communication as taught to us in college or, in the case probably of the majority, as learned from reading books on the subject or from the friendly advice of friends and colleagues in the work place.

It looks like this assumption is being proved wrong judging from the quality of discourse in public fora or in both the established and social media. I think it’s not due to lack of knowledge that these lessons get lost in delivery or in translation. It’s just that along the way we get carried away by our biases that we cannot be objective anymore in the way we evaluate messages thrown our way.

In most cases, our ego usually gets in the way of our listening to other people’s views, especially if they contradict our own. We insist on what we believe in and totally disregard the fact that others may hold views which we have also to respect and take into account.

I think most of us are familiar with the basic two-way communication process, the Source-Message-Channel-Receiver (SMCR) model with F for Feedback to complete it. I keep running through my brain the scenes from the past three weeks and I am still trying to reconcile what I have believed in all along about our responsibility as communicators.

J still cannot accept that sound bites can replace policy statements; rudeness can replace civil discourse; cursing can be done uncensored in public; and insults can replace civility in discussing serious matter of importance to the nation and in full view of an entire public and the world, including youth and children whom we have been teaching “good manner and right conduct” at home and school.

In so brief a time, we have displayed for all the world to see the worst in our party politics all because we have shelved conveniently our knowledge about Communication 101, if not our values as a nation with its proud history of heroic struggles against foreign invaders and local despots. In sound bites rather than in legitimate fora, verbal assaults were launched against the Catholic Church, journalists and the mass media, the United Nations and several allied countries with whom we have diplomatic relations and are sources of employment for millions of our workers and professionals.  

Pronouncements about the planned burial of a dictator at the Libingan ng mga Bayani, the possible appointment of his son to a Cabinet post, the release of a former President from hospital arrest, some prominent politicians accused of corruption from detention, all insult the memory of hundreds of families whose sons and daughters gave up their lives for the cause of freedom and democracy in our country.

Wrong source, wrong message, wrong channel. No less than UN Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon reacted quite strongly against the implied threat to the lives of Filipino journalists in a country with a high incidence of violence against media practitioners. On the other hand, none of the key political parties, including those in the so-called opposition, issued a statement on this turn of events in this country they always pledge to serve and make great again every election time. Instead, the whole nation witnessed a massive exodus to the so-called Coalition of Change led by the new party in power, which increased their ranks from 3 members to 350 in Congress in a matter of weeks.

The militant Marxist Left, if they are still called that way, joined the exodus enticed by the release of political prisoners and the promise to hold no less than four portfolios in the Cabinet. The Church wisely remained quiet when the new leader of the nation started rattling some skeletons in their closet which included the request for a Pajero from a President by a Bishop, etc.

Announcements about bounties which could amount to billions of pesos for the killing of drug lords and their pushers, in lieu impliedly of due process, did not merit any response from any human rights group. When the head of the Commission of Human Rights complained, he was promptly called an idiot by the President-elect which must have brought chill to many a spine among human rights groups.  

When people commented about this in the media, they were promptly labelled hypocrites by some of his followers. One of the avid fans even blamed the media for not being inspiring by reporting on such stuff or other negative events. It is conveniently forgotten it’s not the media who are acting weird and saying or doing outrageous stuff. They are merely reporting what is being said and done because that’s their role. Why indeed blame the messenger?

The source of the message in the communication process is critical in having a message noticed or given prominence and commented on by the public or the target receivers or audience. In all the media events of the past few weeks, the prominence of the source and his hard-earned 16 million votes have not been used to influence the quality of what is supposed to be a national dialogue between the party in power and the people. Everything seemed to be unplanned.

Everything depended on what would come out from the traditionally but often irritatingly foul mouth of the President-elect and to the surprise of many people, such mindless display of unplanned messages occurred with surprising regularity, something inexcusable if you are involving a credible source fresh from an overwhelming mandate from the people.

This inability to make use of an excellent source for opportunity messaging was a big letdown for the people who tenaciously supported him through the intense campaign characterized by a barrage of negative messages against the candidate who would be the President-elect a few days before election. These supporters persevered and survived it all only to be gifted by a demeaning performance from a potentially excellent source of relevant and inspiring messages on the eve of what has been billed as a period of change for our beloved country.

There was no indication that a team helped the President-elect to prepare core messages for each occasion that he had to talk during the three-week period after election. Normally a set of messages are selected for each type of audience all geared towards achieving an objective or what is called an “ effect.” Even ad libs could be planned.

What came across during the press conference and the other media events, was a President-elect quite arrogant and insensitive to the feelings of others. His off-the-cuff remarks might draw laughs but they depicted a person who wants to hear only his own voice and expects others to obey him. I agree with close friends who are among his rabid supporters that this public image projected by previous media events was not the real self of the the President-elect.

The other positive thing is that his staff seemed to have listened well to the negative feedbacks in both the established and social media. It was announced there would be no more press conferences and that he would “metamorphosed” into a more “presidentiable” personality. That took quite an enormous amount of humility to admit there was somehow some lapses in the management of previous events.

We look forward to new announcements starting July 1 after the installation of the Duterte Administration. We hope staff work will include the use of basic Communication 101 in moving towards creating the People’s Federal Republic of the Philippines, or whatever it will be called by the new regime under what looks like a rainbow coalition.

Hope it works. We pray it works.

Send comments to: npestelos@gmail.com ###

NMP/17 June 2016/1.41 p.m.