View
221
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/8/2019 Cybercampaigning in the Philippine Presidential Elections 2010
1/30
Mary Grace P. MirandillaDecember 7, 2009
CPRsouth4, Negombo, Sri Lanka
8/8/2019 Cybercampaigning in the Philippine Presidential Elections 2010
2/30
Background
Internet is transforming the information and
communication environment of political landscape,
including election campaigns
Lower cost vs. traditional campaigningo Implications on political financing/governance
o Level the playing field
Interactivity and networking features allow
candidates to engage voters and vice-versa
Create, update, and verify information anytime,
anywhere as long as internet available
8/8/2019 Cybercampaigning in the Philippine Presidential Elections 2010
3/30
8/8/2019 Cybercampaigning in the Philippine Presidential Elections 2010
4/30
Objectives
Objectives: To compare how Filipino politicians use cybercampaign
platforms from the traditional mainstream media (TMM)
To determine how site visitors perceive the use and benefits ofcybercampaign platforms
T
o analyze the policy and regulatory implications ofcybercampaign platforms in the Philippines
Research questions:1. How and to what extent are potential 2010 candidates using
online platforms compared to TMM for election campaigns?
2. What is the potential of the internet to complement,supplement, or supplant costly campaigning on TMMs?
3. How do Filipino internet users perceive the use and benefits ofcybercampaign platforms?
4. What are the policy and regulatory implications ofcybercampaigning in the Philippines?
8/8/2019 Cybercampaigning in the Philippine Presidential Elections 2010
5/30
Cyberspace Normalization
Socioeconomic and political relationships
online resemble those of the real world
Internet is shaped by real-world features
common campaign tactics, established power andresource relations, or traditional cultural values(Margolis, Resnick, & Wolfe, 1999)
Internet will do little to change politics-as-usualin election campaigns (Small, 2008; Norris & Curtice, 2008)
8/8/2019 Cybercampaigning in the Philippine Presidential Elections 2010
6/30
Cyberspace Normalization
DOMINANT
CANDIDATE
MAINSTREAM
MEDIA
EXPOSUREDOMINATE
CYBERSPACE
INFOPRODUCER
INFOCONSUMER
BLAH!
BLAH!
8/8/2019 Cybercampaigning in the Philippine Presidential Elections 2010
7/30
Cyberspace Equalization/Innovation
Unlike standard, mainstream media, where
information flows from one to many, the Internet
permits many-to-many reciprocal flows
As an interconnected and interactive medium, theInternet is a network that has no privileged center
Any netizen can create and distribute
information, not just consume it (Margolis, Resnick, &Wolfe, 1999)
8/8/2019 Cybercampaigning in the Philippine Presidential Elections 2010
8/30
Cybercampaign Innovation
ONE-WAY
EMPOWERING
INTERACTIVE
COST-EFFECTIVE
Access, provide, and
validate information
Promote or criticizea candidate
Quick feedback
Interact w/ candidate
and other voters
Information provision
Candidate promotion
Political discussionVoter mobilization
Campaign participation
Fundraising
8/8/2019 Cybercampaigning in the Philippine Presidential Elections 2010
9/30
Methodology
Combination ofquantitative and qualitative
methodologies
Supply analysis ofcandidate websites adopting a
scoring system that marks presence or absence of
campaign-related content/features (Bentivegna, 2002;
Gibson and Ward, 2000; and Gibson, Margolis, Resnick,
and Ward, 2003); structured and unstructured interviews
Demand
online survey of site visitors thru candidatessocial networking sites (SNS) to inquire about: familiarity
with online and offline campaign tools; kind of information
they access from both sources; and their perceived benefits
of online campaigning
8/8/2019 Cybercampaigning in the Philippine Presidential Elections 2010
10/30
Candidate Websites
8/8/2019 Cybercampaigning in the Philippine Presidential Elections 2010
11/30
Candidate Website Scoring System
Information
candidate as communication producer; data such
as biographical and political profiles, news
releases, position papers, and policy lines
Mobilization
candidates daily schedule, public appearances,
opportunities to meet potential voters, electoral
committee management team, solicitation of
participation to join online and offline events,
fundraising, and provision of campaign
paraphernalia
8/8/2019 Cybercampaigning in the Philippine Presidential Elections 2010
12/30
Candidate Website Scoring System
Community
venues for citizens to express opinion aboutcandidates program; take part in forums, live chats, orpolls; leave messages in a noticeboard, which others
can reply to or view
Services
downloading of software, links to other websites,entertainment (comic strips, political trivia, and jokes),
and sending of SMS
Website design and Multimedia
graphics, moving icons, video, photos, live streamingthat helps information and communication
8/8/2019 Cybercampaigning in the Philippine Presidential Elections 2010
13/30
CANDIDATE INFORMATION MOBILIZATION COMMUNITY SERVICES DESIGN TOTAL
ESCUDERO, FRANCIS CHIZ 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.7 3.0
PANGILINAN, FRANCIS KIKO 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.7 2.8
LEGARDA, LOREN 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.5 2.2
VILLAR, MANNY 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.8 2.1
ROXAS, MAR 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.7 2.1
LACSON, PANFILO PING 0.7 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.5 2.1
FERNANDO, BAYANI BF 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.7 2.0
BINAY, JEJOMAR JOJO 0.5 0.0 0. 0.2 0.7 1.5
ESTRADA, JOSEPH ERAP 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.3
DE CASTRO, NOLI
KABAYAN0.6 0.0 0. 0. 0.3 1.1
MEAN SCORE 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.6 2.0
Candidate Website Scores
8/8/2019 Cybercampaigning in the Philippine Presidential Elections 2010
14/30
8/8/2019 Cybercampaigning in the Philippine Presidential Elections 2010
15/30
Candidate SNS
8/8/2019 Cybercampaigning in the Philippine Presidential Elections 2010
16/30
72 Respondents
7
15
9
11
15
2
3
2
4 4
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Escudero Legarda Pangilinan Roxas Villar
acebook
riendster
57
15
8/8/2019 Cybercampaigning in the Philippine Presidential Elections 2010
17/30
Profile
Age
30-4 y/o 33 (54.2%)18-29 y/o 20 (38.9%)
50+ y/o 4 (5.0%)
Sex
Male 40 (55.6%)Female 32 (44.4%)
Location
Manila 30 (41.7%)Luzon 20 (27.8%)Abroad 13 (18.1%)
Mindanao 5 (6.9%)
Visayas 4 (5.6%)
Employment
Yes 53 (73.6%)Student 11 (15.3%)Unemployed 8 (1.1%)
8/8/2019 Cybercampaigning in the Philippine Presidential Elections 2010
18/30
Profile
Income
P50,001 and up (Class A - UpperClass) 27
P30,001-P50,000 (Class B - Upper Class) 13
P15,00
1-PP30,000 (Class C
1- Middle Class) 8
P8,001-P15,000 (Class C2 - Middle Class) 7
P3,001-P8,000 (Class D - Lower Class) 2
P3,000 or less (Class E - Extremely low class) 2
Political GroupNo 53 (73.6%)Yes 19 Political party
Party-list
Interest group
Support for a candidateStill choosing a candidate 38 (52.7%)
Active supporter of a candidate 14
Passive supportive of a candidate 12
Apolitical/doesnt support any 8
55.6%
8/8/2019 Cybercampaigning in the Philippine Presidential Elections 2010
19/30
Profile
Last voted
2007 elections 32 (44%)
First-time voter in 2010 12
2004 presidential elections 13Other 8
Registered voter
Yes 51 (70.8%)
Will register 15
No 6
Will vote in 2010
Yes 65 (90.2%)
No 7
Don't know at this stage
Dont believe in our voting system
Dont know how to register for absentee votingI have no reason to do so
I will be out of the country for further studies
Name lost in register
Cant register in RP in time for election
8/8/2019 Cybercampaigning in the Philippine Presidential Elections 2010
20/30
Internet Use
Forhow long now
7+ years 49 (68%)5+ to 7 years 12
3+ to 5 years 6
1+ to 3 years 1A few months to 1 year 3
Mode of access
Subscription at home 39 (54%)Office/school 17
Internet caf 5
Prepaid access 2Missing 9
Frequency
Everyday 54 (79%)3-5 times a week 8
Once a week 1
Missing 9
Information accessed online
News/current affairs 64 (88.8%)Work-related information 59Info about family/friends 59
Politics and government 44
Show business 36
School-related information 31
8/8/2019 Cybercampaigning in the Philippine Presidential Elections 2010
21/30
Membership in Candidate SNS
Networking at work!
Knowledge of a candidates SNS thru membership
36 (50%) belonged to more than one network
Access to information about candidate is mainreason for joining candidates SNS
Only 12 (17%) joined because they believe in the
candidate; 8 (11%) to support the candidate
Only 3 (4%) joined to participate and be heard
8/8/2019 Cybercampaigning in the Philippine Presidential Elections 2010
22/30
Offline Info Source on 2010 Elections
Info about 2010 election and candidates was in news
and personal ad format
Villarand Roxas dominated TMM exposure
Stand on issues and policies ranked #1 & 2 in kind
of info accessed in TMM
Main source of news/info about 2010 elections
Rank #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6
Television 42 13 5 0 0 0
Radio 2 3 5 24 6 3
Newspaper 7 21 24 4 0 0
Magazine 0 0 3 9 20 5
Mobile phone 0 0 1 1 6 22
Internet 18 20 14 6 3 0
8/8/2019 Cybercampaigning in the Philippine Presidential Elections 2010
23/30
Online Info Source on 2010 Elections
Online news sites main source of info re 2010
elections/candidates on web, apart from SNS
Escudero and Roxas both ranked #1 as candidate
usually seen/heard/read about online
Cybercampaign tools not popularamong SNS users
25 (34.7%) visited websites
19 (26.4%) visited blogs
7 (9.7%) visited micro-blogging sites
CANDIDATE INFORMATION MOBILIZATION COMMUNITY SERVICES DESIGN TOTAL
ESCUDERO, FRANCIS CHIZ 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.7 3.0
ROXAS, MAR 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.7 2.1
8/8/2019 Cybercampaigning in the Philippine Presidential Elections 2010
24/30
Perception ofCybercampaign Tools
Information access dominates main reason for visiting
cybercampaigning resources
to know about agenda, platform, and advocacies; and to
get updates on work and activities
Access to more candidate info is most commonly
perceived benefits of cybercampaign tools
Candidates credential/track record, personal
advocacies considered most useful feature
Info on meetings, forums and activities only ranked #4
8/8/2019 Cybercampaigning in the Philippine Presidential Elections 2010
25/30
Participation in Campaign Activities
Over50%:
has voted during elections
has left a comment on websites
is likely to join in campaign activities offline is not likely to give candidates financial contributions
Over35%:
has campaigned for a candidate offline has participated in offline/online issue-based forums
is likely to join a miting-de-avance offline
8/8/2019 Cybercampaigning in the Philippine Presidential Elections 2010
26/30
Conclusions
SUPPLYSIDE
Cyberspace normalization seen at play One-way information features dominate website
content, delivered like in TMM
Untapped potential of internet formobilization andgreater participation of electorates
Communityfeatures, meant to engage voters indiscussion, debates, and consultations, scored low
But, a promising featureinvitation to join team of
supporterswas seen in 7 out of10 websites Can lead to creation of edge-based organizations
Empowering teams of core supporters, thru Internet, toplay key role in campaign, instead of relying on patrons inlocal government, would be manifestation of equalization
8/8/2019 Cybercampaigning in the Philippine Presidential Elections 2010
27/30
Conclusions
DEMAND SIDE
People with the resources (upper
class, employed) make up cybercampaign tool
users
Despite biased sample, Internet not top choice
for main source of election/candidate info
Normalization seen in demand side
More candidate info main reason for access and most
commonly perceived benefit
Low demand for more interaction with politicians either
online or offline
8/8/2019 Cybercampaigning in the Philippine Presidential Elections 2010
28/30
Conclusions
Reality check! Contextualize empowerment in RP election campaign
Key informants and experts point to mobile phone as
more appropriate ICT for RP campaigning
Fundraising not entrenched in RP election culture
Few Filipinos trust internet for transactions;
Parties lack infrastructure to generate contributions
Youth and OFWs main targets of cybercampaign, but
do they use internet for politics?
More access to info may not lead to higher political
consciousness or change how citizens value elections.
8/8/2019 Cybercampaigning in the Philippine Presidential Elections 2010
29/30
Conclusions
Regulation on cybercampaigning in a grey area
Commission on Elections (Comelec): internet use to
promote oneself is a right, form of freedom of
expression
Regulating cybercampaign tools not recommended
Implications on internet as a medium, in general
Transforming candidate-voter relationshipan
opportunity never before seen in Philippines politics
Comelec should maximize internet to better monitor
and make campaign process transparent and
accountable
8/8/2019 Cybercampaigning in the Philippine Presidential Elections 2010
30/30
Thank you very much.
gmirandilla@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/gracemirandilla
Recommended