25 Cents’ Worth: Bring me the problems of Vhong Navarro

Cream does not always rise to the top. In certain cases and specific situations, the material that floats above the rest is of little value and unimportant.

Every once in awhile, we experience this media phenomenon wherein no matter what direction we look, we find ourselves staring at the same story. This happens in both tragedies and triumphs, in terrorist attacks and presidential inaugurations. Whether we open the television or radio, pick up a newspaper or a phone, or check our Facebook or Twitter, there are days where they all are broadcasting the same story.

The nature of these vastly exposed stories will always say something about us as people of the world. Some stories will say very little while others would say much more than what is needed.

The coverage of an earthquake in Haiti simply means that we are still responsible and concerned citizens. The reporting on the birth of a duke would tell us that we are but curious beings that look for unattached causes for happiness.

So what does our interest in the recent events of Vhong Navarro’s life say about us as people of the world?

Opportunity Cost

On January 24, it was decided that the Vhong Navarro beating was more important than new reports on the Bubby Dacer murder.

On January 29, it was decided that the accusation of rape by Deniece Cornejo was more important than the death of 17 rebels due to the ongoing conflict in Maguindanao.

On January 30, it was decided that the CCTV footage of the incident was more important than the continuation of the hearing on the pork barrel scam.

These are the stories that serve as the best alternative forgone.

There are seven news values held by media and they are timeliness, impact, proximity, conflict, currency, bizarreness and prominence. It is because of the last value on the list why we are made aware of Vhong Navarro’s problems.

So it is media that picks the content on our screens. It is media that sets the agenda by covering a certain topic more frequently than another. This will influence the audience into associating higher importance to this topic over others.

So why do they pick these kinds of news?

Media wants controversy for good reason. A report done on things of conflict or on uneven ground will spark debate. Media needs news that people cannot and will not easily dismiss. This will generate traffic and spark prolonged discussion. The only thing good news can spark is a fuzzy feeling in our body.

But what if we were given a choice to pick between the death of nobodies or a scandal of a somebody, wouldn’t we choose scandal nine times out of ten?

Troubles and Problems

We are not helpless in this exposure of information. We still can pick the channels we watch or the things we read. We more importantly will always have the option to simply not watch or not read what is fed to us.

But a medium wherein the choice is not so direct is social media. Given that we are limited by the powerhouse double of Twitter and Facebook, we are then in turn limited by their content and their content is dictated by the people we follow and befriend.

So although the choice is indirect, it is still there. If we grow tired of hearing about news we deem mindless, then all we need to do is sever our electronic ties with the people that keep posting, retweeting and encouraging these stories.

But will we do that? The answer is no for a number of reasons. One is because we are humans not robots and we would not simply eliminate those who are detrimental to us. But more importantly it is because a good number of us enjoy the bad, the ugly and the weird news. We give attention to people that drive their cars into floods, have mental breakdowns in the MRT and those who are not satisfied with being served cup noodles.

Our time is the most valuable thing we as people possess and we are giving it to these odd people and their odder stories. The argument here is not that people are wasting time but that it is their time to waste. Like money and possessions, people are free to do with it what they want. If they want to be entertained by these bizarre things then so be it.

We must not forget that one of the things news has to be is unusual. The unusual by its definition comes in its rarity and there is nothing rare with the people that suffer and die everyday.

At the end of the day, this is news. People may call it stupid news and those watching it, stupid people but aren’t people allowed to be stupid? Aren’t people allowed to expose themselves to unintelligent things? We must also keep in mind that as people have a right to be stupid, others too have a right to oppose them and hate them for being so.

We should always be allowed to have an opinion and a preference but it is still saddening that the former is so negative and the latter so dense at times.

Mad Men

Although we are treated as a collective, there will always be a division among the people who view media. The people who are looking for a solution are called crazy by those who cannot see the problem.

Even after everything said in the defence of news like Navarro’s being overexposed, I cannot shake the disturbing itch that his story and his problems should not be broadcasted and be garnering the following that it has. So in this muddled situation, I ask you the question I constantly ask myself.

Do you even see a problem?