Meaningful survey results

Uriel Quilinguing .

WHILE it is commendable for Xavier University’s research arm, Kinaadman, to conduct surveys on voters’ preferences for local candidates and on compelling current issues and problems would-be elective officials must addressed, the instrument that was used in the second and final round of survey which focused on voter’s sources of information must be reexamined. Survey results largely depend on the tool of measurement that was used, whether the respondents had an elbow room in expressing what was on their minds. They should be unbridled to enable them to creatively think outside the box.

It can be gleaned from the outcome of the survey on the sources of information for voters were confined only to eight pre-identified sources, respondents were only made to rank them, from one to eight, as follows: 1. television, 2. radio, 3. brochures and campaign materials, 4. candidates jingles, 5 social media, 6. surfing the internet, 7. newspaper, and 8. text messages.

Unclear, too, was whether the respondents ranked the eight sources for candidates for senators and party-list representatives or on local candidates. Survey participants must be free, not tamed.  

Those in the know would always consider television, radio and newspaper, including printed campaign materials and jingles, as traditional sources of information. 

But times have changed because of technological advances and the introduction of the digital platform, hence social media, surfing the internet and text messages have been included in the ranking of candidates information sources. These cutting edge communication technologies have revolutionalized the packaging of information and branding. 

MediaKonek is made to believe political advertisements on television, radio broadcast and newspapers were already taken into mind; posters, tarpaulins, leaflets, stickers and bowlers  as valuable information sources.

At the local level, voters could have generated information on candidates not only through the canned television ads and jingles played over the air-lanes but more so during the handshaking and political rallies. Others know the candidates even more because of candidates fora, interaction, debates and even through megaphone-aided rekorida.   

Classmates, peers, neighbors and relatives can be sources of reliable information of candidates, ever vigilant so as not to subsumed by herd mentality.

In the absence of any alternative, findings of Kinaadman University Research Office (Kuro) are useful for researchers but results must be “laymanized” not only to be understood but for these to become meaningful and relevant. Merely seeing the sources of information ranking doesn’t mean at all. 

At the national level, involving senators and party-list representatives, the dynamics differs from that of the local setting. Results of Pulse Asia survey in 2013 were useful because it took account of the 96.6 percent television viewership. Clearly, this attracts candidates wanting to make it the magic 12 to place political ads, saying something worthwhile so as to be mentioned in a TV news programs, and by grabbing every opportunity of TV interviews. But this could be the reason for the exorbitant cost of airtime.

Be that as it may. one last thing is clear today—that before going to the voting precinct, a list of candidates to be voted upon must be ready at hand. One’s mind must have been cleansed from the infections of fake news. This list is the sum of all information that were generated from various reliable sources and verified for their truthfulness, regardless of their ranking.

(Uriel C. Quilinguing is a former editor-in-chief of this paper. He was once the president of the Cagayan de Oro Press Club and has been into campus journalism trainings for more than three decades.)