The pros and cons of celebrities interviewing political candidates

Manila, Philippines – On Tuesday night, January 25, celebrity talk show host Boy Abunda had a one-on-one interview with the dictator’s son and presidential candidate Bongbong Marcos – part of a series of interviews with other candidates this week.

Last week, Marcos refused to attend a GMA interview with journalist Jessica Soho and the same candidates.

In a statement, Marcos Camp Soho said it was “discriminating against Marcos”, and therefore should not be met.

“We believe that her inquiries will only focus on the negative aspects of Unity that BBM does not like.”[s] And do not subscribe [to],” are there.

In an interview with Abunda, Marcos was asked mainly about his political views, from mining, the Covenant-19 response, to illegal drugs to the Western Philippines. Abunda asked Marcos if he believed in Amnesty International’s record of human rights abuses during his father, Ferdinand Marcos.

Showbiz exclusion

Abunda is not the first Shobby person to interview political candidates, and Shobby interviewers each have their own style and angles. A.D. In 2021, actress Tony Gonzaga Marcos and Vice President Lennie Robertedon were interviewed on her YouTube show, hosted by entertainer and host Esther Amoyo, as well as YouTube host Marcos and his wife Lisa Araneta-Marcos. . A.D. In 2016, actor-host (and the president’s daughter / sister) Chris Aquino gave an interview to Roberto while he was still running for VP – and in fact he also interviewed Marcos in 1995.

But the question remains: should celebrities or showcasing individuals generally interview political candidates? Is it possible to lose sight of the fact that governance and government issues are so different from gossip and entertainment? Or would it be beneficial for someone outside of politics to infiltrate this world?

We asked Rapler’s readers how they felt about this, and here are some of the advantages and disadvantages of their answers.

Pro: Popularity and Access

Like it or not, Filipino social media lovers are slaves to algorithms. Celebrities are more focused on gaining followers than strong journalists, so their interviews are more likely to get a lot of eyeballs without much effort. This is especially good for candidates who do not follow the news religiously – especially for candidates who are exposed to the election process in general. The more participants in the democratization process, the better.

Con: Choosing Melodrama instead of Accuracy

Celebrities are first and foremost entertainers. This is what they are trained to do; They are good things. Their interviews, then, have the potential to exaggerate the provocative features of the audience in the name of entertaining the audience and exaggerate the more relevant but “less fun” aspects of their forums and advocates. Candidates can be seen as role models, and voters may have distorted ideas about who to vote for.

Pro: Good on candidates

But there are benefits to having fun. It is their ability to show off their competitors (if not exaggerated) in a hand-to-hand and popular way. Looking at candidates outside of politics – people with personal lives, pop culture choices, jokes – can still say something about who can be a leader. After all, we do not vote for robots or gods; They are multifaceted, flawed, and out of work.

Con: Lack of expertise and technique

Showbiz interviewees can immerse themselves in research and tough questions, but at the end of the day, talking to political candidates is not what they usually do. Hard news reporters, on the other hand, have had the ability to interrogate people on complex and related issues for years – especially when they have a strong tendency to avoid harsh or criminal interviews. Experience is a great educator, and while celebrities are sincere and determined to give concrete interviews to politicians, can they be good at telling the truth as strong journalists?

Pro: Can ask the right questions

Some argue, however, that it is only a matter of time before the right question is asked and the candidate is obliged to answer. Good questions, of course, are not the only property of journalists; Anyone can make an important speech, and as a patriotic interview may be polished or inaccurate, how the candidate responds, can take a long time. Foreigners may also bring new perspectives on an issue, as they may see it with new eyes or in a different context.

Con: Not to be discriminated against

Neutrality, objectivity, impartiality – The key to being a good journalist is the ability to handle all issues fairly and critically. Unfortunately, the entertainment world is more conducive to highlighting the topics, which is almost certainly public relations. A big piece of showbread, of course, involves the promotion of artists’ projects, and this imitation culture informs a well-known interviewer how to work with a candidate. Salt-laden journalists do not worry about being liked by their subjects. Can Shobby’s reporter be open to breaking relationships?

–

In the run-up to the May general election, there is a growing awareness of who the candidates are and what they stand for. The media we learn about should also pay attention to it, especially when there is a lot of misinformation. It may be easy to dismiss the show as the dark side of the world, but is that a terrible judgment or is it right? As with most things leading up to the new administration, it is up to us to decide. – Rappler.com