Public opinion, the pork barrel scam, and state-civil society relations
On July 12, 2013, the entire Philippine nation was in for a rude awakening. The Philippine Daily Inquirer published a report on the alleged 10 billion peso pork barrel scam involving many of the country's lawmakers and Janet Lim Napoles of JLN Group of Companies. Since then, expositions, defenses, and actions regarding the Public Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scam have dominated the content of traditional and social media. In the receiving end of these discourses and information is the public. The public plays a critical role in ensuring accountability and abolishing the corrupt and patronage practices in Philippine politics. Throughout the development of the issue, public opinion has varied in both intensity and content; displaying volatile highs and lows in saturation and positives and negatives in disposition. Considering that opinion is a strong foundation for action, a fundamental question arises--how is public opinion on the PDAF scam formed?
We are political science students from the University of the Philippines in Diliman, under the Political Science 160: Society, Politics, and Government class of Professor Jalton Taguibao. In our research and analysis of the issue, we argue that public opinion on the PDAF scam is formed by state and civil society interactions, as it is depicted in traditional and social media.
Research Question
In light of the context of this research, it is in our position to answer the question: how is public opinion on the PDAF scam formed?
To answer this question, specific questions must first be made clear regarding public opinion and public opinion formation as independent concepts:
Framework
The research is mainly concerned with public opinion and its formation. To answer the questions previously posed, the following frameworks and concepts are most appropriate—heuristics, framing and agenda setting.
Heuristics or “information shortcuts” is usually the route taken by individuals in gathering information that consequently make up the content their opinion (Sniderman, 1993). They are less likely to spend much time acquiring large amounts of comprehensive information to form the basis of their opinion. This is largely due to an absence of a strong incentive for individuals to gather much information about politics solely to improve their knowledge of it. Thus, public opinion largely takes information from primers, media and the likes.
Agenda setting is taken on by the elites who provide the public with mass amounts of boiled down information, usually through mass media. Through this, they are able to define priorities and lead in the direction and content of public conversation (McDonald, 2009). The manner of which they frame or problematise issues become the dominant perspective as to which the issue is viewed with.
Heuristics sheds light on the information-gathering tendencies of the public, whereas agenda setting and framing explains who forms public opinion and how it is done. By taking on the route of heuristics and information shortcuts, the public places the elites in the position to set the agenda and frame issues according to their dispositions. Public opinion, therefore, is formed by elites through agenda-setting and framing.
Methodology
Using the Philippine Daily Inquirer and Rappler as lenses, which were respectively first and third most read news site by California-based web information company Alexa, we examined the relationship between state and civil society and how it forms public opinion on the PDAF scam. We qualify "state" as all articles that involved statements, actions, and the likes of state actors such as the president, senators, or the Commission on Audit. On the other hand, we qualify "civil society" as all articles that involved statements, actions and the likes of non-state actors such as Napoles, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the individual actors involved (e.g. whistle-blowers). Further, we measured public opinion quantitatively in terms of issue attention or the number of shares and likes and qualitatively in terms of published comments and tweets. The comments and tweets are strategically chosen to be representative of the majority. We chose to examine the top comments, as quantified by the number of its likes, supported by other subsequent comments and tweets. Situating all events in a timeline, we examined how certain state and civil society actions elicit, produce and form public responses and opinion.
Scope and Limitations
We acknowledge a number of limitations in our research. First, given that traditional and social media were used as lenses, their role as actors in their own right is played out. The factors that they entail, such as media bias and framing, lie outside our analysis. Second, given the scarcity of time and resources, we only looked at events from July 13, when the first report regarding the PDAF scam was released, to August 26, when the Millions Peoples Marched took place. Third, given their overwhelming number, we only examined a number of comments and tweets. Finally, given the limited sources, we acknowledge that formation of public opinion is attributed to a multiplicity of factors such as personal disposition, ideology and socio-economic position. However, for the purpose of this research, we downplay other factors to zero-in on a less examined one, which is the interaction of the state and civil society. Despite all these limitations, we remain confident in the accuracy and comprehensiveness of our research.
Objective
The main objective of this research is to enlighten the public on how their opinion is formed by the interaction between the state and civil society, providing them with a more conscious understanding of such dynamics that affect them. It is essential that the public be challenged to think critically, to re-examine previously uncontested assumptions of the individuality of the formation of their opinion, and realise the dynamics outside themselves that affect the formation of their opinion. Also, the research is also able to provide a general overview of how the public sees the state and civil society, situating the political health of the Philippines in the midst of the PDAF scam. Through the creation of this site, we ultimately aim to engage our readers in the discourse regarding public opinion and state-civil society interaction in the great scandal that currently plagues our nation--the PDAF or pork barrel scam.
We are political science students from the University of the Philippines in Diliman, under the Political Science 160: Society, Politics, and Government class of Professor Jalton Taguibao. In our research and analysis of the issue, we argue that public opinion on the PDAF scam is formed by state and civil society interactions, as it is depicted in traditional and social media.
Research Question
In light of the context of this research, it is in our position to answer the question: how is public opinion on the PDAF scam formed?
To answer this question, specific questions must first be made clear regarding public opinion and public opinion formation as independent concepts:
- How does the public take in information? What are its general tendencies?
- Who forms public opinion? How do they form public opinion?
Framework
The research is mainly concerned with public opinion and its formation. To answer the questions previously posed, the following frameworks and concepts are most appropriate—heuristics, framing and agenda setting.
Heuristics or “information shortcuts” is usually the route taken by individuals in gathering information that consequently make up the content their opinion (Sniderman, 1993). They are less likely to spend much time acquiring large amounts of comprehensive information to form the basis of their opinion. This is largely due to an absence of a strong incentive for individuals to gather much information about politics solely to improve their knowledge of it. Thus, public opinion largely takes information from primers, media and the likes.
Agenda setting is taken on by the elites who provide the public with mass amounts of boiled down information, usually through mass media. Through this, they are able to define priorities and lead in the direction and content of public conversation (McDonald, 2009). The manner of which they frame or problematise issues become the dominant perspective as to which the issue is viewed with.
Heuristics sheds light on the information-gathering tendencies of the public, whereas agenda setting and framing explains who forms public opinion and how it is done. By taking on the route of heuristics and information shortcuts, the public places the elites in the position to set the agenda and frame issues according to their dispositions. Public opinion, therefore, is formed by elites through agenda-setting and framing.
Methodology
Using the Philippine Daily Inquirer and Rappler as lenses, which were respectively first and third most read news site by California-based web information company Alexa, we examined the relationship between state and civil society and how it forms public opinion on the PDAF scam. We qualify "state" as all articles that involved statements, actions, and the likes of state actors such as the president, senators, or the Commission on Audit. On the other hand, we qualify "civil society" as all articles that involved statements, actions and the likes of non-state actors such as Napoles, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the individual actors involved (e.g. whistle-blowers). Further, we measured public opinion quantitatively in terms of issue attention or the number of shares and likes and qualitatively in terms of published comments and tweets. The comments and tweets are strategically chosen to be representative of the majority. We chose to examine the top comments, as quantified by the number of its likes, supported by other subsequent comments and tweets. Situating all events in a timeline, we examined how certain state and civil society actions elicit, produce and form public responses and opinion.
Scope and Limitations
We acknowledge a number of limitations in our research. First, given that traditional and social media were used as lenses, their role as actors in their own right is played out. The factors that they entail, such as media bias and framing, lie outside our analysis. Second, given the scarcity of time and resources, we only looked at events from July 13, when the first report regarding the PDAF scam was released, to August 26, when the Millions Peoples Marched took place. Third, given their overwhelming number, we only examined a number of comments and tweets. Finally, given the limited sources, we acknowledge that formation of public opinion is attributed to a multiplicity of factors such as personal disposition, ideology and socio-economic position. However, for the purpose of this research, we downplay other factors to zero-in on a less examined one, which is the interaction of the state and civil society. Despite all these limitations, we remain confident in the accuracy and comprehensiveness of our research.
Objective
The main objective of this research is to enlighten the public on how their opinion is formed by the interaction between the state and civil society, providing them with a more conscious understanding of such dynamics that affect them. It is essential that the public be challenged to think critically, to re-examine previously uncontested assumptions of the individuality of the formation of their opinion, and realise the dynamics outside themselves that affect the formation of their opinion. Also, the research is also able to provide a general overview of how the public sees the state and civil society, situating the political health of the Philippines in the midst of the PDAF scam. Through the creation of this site, we ultimately aim to engage our readers in the discourse regarding public opinion and state-civil society interaction in the great scandal that currently plagues our nation--the PDAF or pork barrel scam.