If you’re a Filipino who owns a television set (and I’m sure you probably do since almost all families here in the Philippines, regardless of their income, own a tv set), you’ve probably seen one of those noontime shows appearing on your own set. You’re also probably part of either of the two groups of television watchers that have come across these shows — either you’re: 1) someone who actually enjoys watching the shows (since it does include a plethora of entertainment segments to keep the show going and interesting), or 2) someone who wants to watch other channels since noontime shows aren’t really your cup of tea.
If you’re part of number 1, then it’s certainly sure that one or more segments of these shows have actually caught your interest. One prominent characteristic of these shows (which probably is its major selling point to the audience) is having a set of contestants best out each other in a series of trials set by the show. Regardless of the type of the show, may it be a dance-off competition (like how Showtime was during its first few rounds of airtime), or a question-and-answer portion (which is a staple in the noontime show business), it always boils down to a competition for “achieving the grand prize”. The ”grand prize” usually comes in big sums of money, a certain “showcase” (set of whatever enticing materials that’s too expensive for a normal person to by), or both.
Tv channels usually capitalize on this part of the segment since this is where the “selling image” of the show is usually molded and reinforced. It is these segments, where contestants actually have a chance at winning big sums of money and have a shot at “changing their fortune”, that become the major selling/attracting point of these shows (if one hasn’t noticed, almost all of the contestants in these shows come from the lower income strata in the society. Given the impoverished setting here in the Philippines, where hardwork isn’t really paid off with its equal share, luck and fortune is the next best thing in achieving a good life).
Now given this context of contestants who are actually poor, and noontime shows giving out big sums of money as prizes, it all seems good right? With the “deserving winners” actually getting the prize and having the chance to change their fortune, it seems that noontime shows are actually good guys. And a lot of people actually have this same sentiment towards these kinds of shows. Who wouldn’t right? With the hosts actually asking the contestants their personal stories, and the contestants actually telling the hosts that they need the money for so and so reasons, these noontime shows portray a “salvific” image. And this image is probably the main selling point of these shows.
If you’re part of number 1, then it’s certainly sure that one or more segments of these shows have actually caught your interest. One prominent characteristic of these shows (which probably is its major selling point to the audience) is having a set of contestants best out each other in a series of trials set by the show. Regardless of the type of the show, may it be a dance-off competition (like how Showtime was during its first few rounds of airtime), or a question-and-answer portion (which is a staple in the noontime show business), it always boils down to a competition for “achieving the grand prize”. The ”grand prize” usually comes in big sums of money, a certain “showcase” (set of whatever enticing materials that’s too expensive for a normal person to by), or both.
Tv channels usually capitalize on this part of the segment since this is where the “selling image” of the show is usually molded and reinforced. It is these segments, where contestants actually have a chance at winning big sums of money and have a shot at “changing their fortune”, that become the major selling/attracting point of these shows (if one hasn’t noticed, almost all of the contestants in these shows come from the lower income strata in the society. Given the impoverished setting here in the Philippines, where hardwork isn’t really paid off with its equal share, luck and fortune is the next best thing in achieving a good life).
Now given this context of contestants who are actually poor, and noontime shows giving out big sums of money as prizes, it all seems good right? With the “deserving winners” actually getting the prize and having the chance to change their fortune, it seems that noontime shows are actually good guys. And a lot of people actually have this same sentiment towards these kinds of shows. Who wouldn’t right? With the hosts actually asking the contestants their personal stories, and the contestants actually telling the hosts that they need the money for so and so reasons, these noontime shows portray a “salvific” image. And this image is probably the main selling point of these shows.
What’s the catch? These shows actually reinforce the stereotype of Filipinos trusting their welfare more into luck than actually putting those efforts into something else that’s useful. It enforces into the Filipinos mind that if there’s a possibility that I can get rich by participating in such activities, then I might as well give it a shot, a lot of shots actually. This probably explains why such shows are a hit with majority of the society. This probably also explains why there are a lot of Filipinos who actually participate in the lotto. This mindset of trusting our welfare on luck has been, and is still is being reinforced by shows such as these.
Although such a circumstance, of entrusting one’s welfare into luck, is a byproduct of the conditions existing in our society. The reinforcing of this stereotype is only but a symptom of the real problem at hand. There is a reason why such shows capitalize on the usage of contestants that come from a poor background (no matter how noble this “salvific” image the tv industry tries to portray). It does not only call to our attention the failure of our government in its job to provide a good life for its citizens. But this stereotype mainly presents symptoms that present a bigger problem — the kind of society that we are living in, and the structures that are present in our own society. With structures that perpetuate a lot of inequality, poverty, and social justice in our society, it is only natural that such a society would soon be corrupted. Structures such as those that give more preference to those who can afford than those who are actually in need, those that allow and foster injustices to happen, those that diminish and humiliate human dignity — existing structures such as these are bound to defile a society if not destroyed immediately.
Although such structures exist, the possibility of changing it is not entirely out of hand. Such solutions are still possible in this day and age. We do not need to conform to the rules and norms that the old society keeps on imposing on us. We do not need to act in accordance to the roles that it has assigned us to. The first step in solving the problem is to think outside the box. In a society where we are kept at a proximity, where we are continuously labelled as a “nobody”, and continuously reminded that it is futile to act (one need only to follow), one must first shatter the coordinates of the old, and start demanding the impossible.
Although such structures exist, the possibility of changing it is not entirely out of hand. Such solutions are still possible in this day and age. We do not need to conform to the rules and norms that the old society keeps on imposing on us. We do not need to act in accordance to the roles that it has assigned us to. The first step in solving the problem is to think outside the box. In a society where we are kept at a proximity, where we are continuously labelled as a “nobody”, and continuously reminded that it is futile to act (one need only to follow), one must first shatter the coordinates of the old, and start demanding the impossible.
No comments:
Post a Comment