Rappler Senatorial Debates

I was curious how live political debates go so I decided to get tickets for last Saturday’s senatorial debates organized by online news group, Rappler. Jorace, one of my college classmates, messaged me over Facebook and told me about the event. It’s just around QC Circle plus it’s free, so why not?

I thought Rappler’s mood meter foretold the fate of the guest senatorial candidates. Well, at the very least of course. If anything can be said about Philippine politics, there’s always something unpredictable and surprising about it. The debate was graced by six candidates: Benigno “Bam” Aquino, Grace Llamanzares-Poe, Risa Hontiveros, all from the Team PNoy slate, Eddie Villanueva of Bangon Pilipinas, Teddy Casino of Bayan Muna and Richard “Dick” Gordon of the United Nationalist Alliance (UNA).

It was divided into three parts: the first part was what I call the question-exchange portion. Two candidates are given three minutes to introduce themselves and their platform of governance. Another two minutes is allotted for Candidate A to ask Candidate B of any issue or whatever under the sun. Candidate B, in turn, has two minutes to answer this. Another minute is given to Candidate A should he/she wishes to do a follow-up question. Candidate B has a minute to answer the follow-up. After this round, roles are reversed. Candidate B will now be given the chance to ask Candidate A and so on.

The second part was another question-and-answer portion. This time, the questions will come from Rappler, chosen from a pool of questions submitted by their social media followers. Another set of six questions came from the audience. The questions were a mix of pressing social issues plus other election concerns the public would want an answer to. All candidates are again given two minutes to answer these questions.

In the final round, the candidates were once again asked to come up the stage to answer the question, “Why should we vote for you?” It’s a crucial three-minute speech for all of the six candidates. I felt they all tried their best to answer this tough one.

After each speech, the mood meter scores of each candidate were shown onscreen. The emotions included were happy, inspired, angry and annoyed. They were generated again from Rappler’s social media followers plus a select number of people from the audience who are asked to rate the candidates. As said, it shows part of how the people feel about each candidate and the elections in general too. A lot of the viewers were annoyed as shown on the screen tallies. Maybe because they felt the speeches of the candidates were either trying too hard to please or too good to be true. Of course there were wow moments. Some candidates were able to balance their annoyed and happy mood scores while others got a bit of a nudge in the happy mood. Of course, the level of those people inspired by the speeches delivered remained at an all-time low. Hmmm, I guess it’s high time for our candidates to work more on adding inspiration and the right amount of positive vibes onto their speeches. The voting public had already grown mature; at the very least I’d hazard to say. They’re critical now more than ever—I guess because most of us have seen too much corruption and evil in politics that we wouldn’t want another monster to lead us. But that deserves another blog entry.

Here are some of the photos I took as soon as I got the chance to get closer to the stage. Hehe. J































More photos at my www.kyemeruth.jux.com. :)

Labels: , , , , , , ,

felix felicis: Rappler Senatorial Debates

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Rappler Senatorial Debates

I was curious how live political debates go so I decided to get tickets for last Saturday’s senatorial debates organized by online news group, Rappler. Jorace, one of my college classmates, messaged me over Facebook and told me about the event. It’s just around QC Circle plus it’s free, so why not?

I thought Rappler’s mood meter foretold the fate of the guest senatorial candidates. Well, at the very least of course. If anything can be said about Philippine politics, there’s always something unpredictable and surprising about it. The debate was graced by six candidates: Benigno “Bam” Aquino, Grace Llamanzares-Poe, Risa Hontiveros, all from the Team PNoy slate, Eddie Villanueva of Bangon Pilipinas, Teddy Casino of Bayan Muna and Richard “Dick” Gordon of the United Nationalist Alliance (UNA).

It was divided into three parts: the first part was what I call the question-exchange portion. Two candidates are given three minutes to introduce themselves and their platform of governance. Another two minutes is allotted for Candidate A to ask Candidate B of any issue or whatever under the sun. Candidate B, in turn, has two minutes to answer this. Another minute is given to Candidate A should he/she wishes to do a follow-up question. Candidate B has a minute to answer the follow-up. After this round, roles are reversed. Candidate B will now be given the chance to ask Candidate A and so on.

The second part was another question-and-answer portion. This time, the questions will come from Rappler, chosen from a pool of questions submitted by their social media followers. Another set of six questions came from the audience. The questions were a mix of pressing social issues plus other election concerns the public would want an answer to. All candidates are again given two minutes to answer these questions.

In the final round, the candidates were once again asked to come up the stage to answer the question, “Why should we vote for you?” It’s a crucial three-minute speech for all of the six candidates. I felt they all tried their best to answer this tough one.

After each speech, the mood meter scores of each candidate were shown onscreen. The emotions included were happy, inspired, angry and annoyed. They were generated again from Rappler’s social media followers plus a select number of people from the audience who are asked to rate the candidates. As said, it shows part of how the people feel about each candidate and the elections in general too. A lot of the viewers were annoyed as shown on the screen tallies. Maybe because they felt the speeches of the candidates were either trying too hard to please or too good to be true. Of course there were wow moments. Some candidates were able to balance their annoyed and happy mood scores while others got a bit of a nudge in the happy mood. Of course, the level of those people inspired by the speeches delivered remained at an all-time low. Hmmm, I guess it’s high time for our candidates to work more on adding inspiration and the right amount of positive vibes onto their speeches. The voting public had already grown mature; at the very least I’d hazard to say. They’re critical now more than ever—I guess because most of us have seen too much corruption and evil in politics that we wouldn’t want another monster to lead us. But that deserves another blog entry.

Here are some of the photos I took as soon as I got the chance to get closer to the stage. Hehe. J































More photos at my www.kyemeruth.jux.com. :)

Labels: , , , , , , ,

2 Comments:

At April 16, 2013 at 5:20 PM , Blogger finyapol said...

naks ganda ng mga shots! hahaha :)

 
At April 17, 2013 at 9:25 AM , Blogger kyemeruth said...

Salamat! Hahaha :P

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home