‘Negging’ in high places

A CNN report: “A Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey on Tuesday showed nearly half of Filipinos agree it is dangerous to print or broadcast content critical of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s administration, even if it is about the truth … ‘As part of its monitoring of Filipinos’ quality of life, SWS regularly assesses respondents’ opinions on the state of press freedom in the country,’ the research body said.”

Whoa! What happened? What sorcery took place, what spell has been cast on the 47 percent of the sample?

A Reuters report on the Inquirer’s front page: “Washington—President Marcos dismissed criticism during an interview on Thursday that his presidential campaign played down the corruption and extravagance the Marcos family was known for during his father’s rule … ”

The story’s headline: “Marcos brushes off criticism he played down corruption,” (News, 5/6/23).

Marcos’ reply: “My opposition would try to bring up this old issue. But of course, we answer to the voting public and the voting public has given their very clear and loud response to that and they are not worried … A fractured society that continues to fight battles that are 45 years old is selling itself short because it’s the future that we’re worried about, not the past.”

Votes can cover a multitude of sins?

Incidentally, an Inquirer story last Tuesday said that a city mayor was removed from office because of vote-buying (“Supporters rally behind embattled Rosal couple in Albay following disqualification,” Regions, 5/9/23). This means that even if you won in the vote count but was proven to have bought votes, your winning is for naught. So, what about the candidates for national posts who delivered sackloads of cash? (Vote padding is a different operation that is done during the counting.) In my book, the winner who had bought votes is not legit. But I digress.

There is a new word that can describe some politicians’ way of responding when confronted with festering realities not to their liking. It can be called “negging.” The word is usually used in the context of individuals’ personal relationships, their way of communicating, how partners speak to each other, how superiors and subordinates relate to each other in subtle ways that can cause self-doubt on the part of the negged while boosting the power of the negger.

The Urban Dictionary defines negging (from negative, negate) as “the act of insulting, deriding, or otherwise putting down of an individual or group by another in an attempt to shake, crack, and eventually crumble … ” self-worth or defenses.

Newly coined words such as negging, gaslighting, ghosting, pozzing, etc. refer to the subtle manipulative ways individuals use in communicating in order to gain power over their targets. Negging could also be a form of “dumbing down.”

How often have we witnessed this being played out publicly before us, for example, during hearings in the House and the Senate with the interrogated going home feeling diminished after the ordeal? Journalists can also be on the receiving end of negging by the powerful during coverages and press conferences. So, “just you wayt” as Eliza Doolittle would say—all that “dismissing” and “brushing aside” gets written into the story, like what Reuters did.

Most journalists could sense these negative subtleties. Still, we should be polite and, most of all, ready to pop that question at the right time.

That’s just what I did years ago during a long breakfast interview with a political figure. (The interview was arranged by art patron and environmentalist Odette Alcantara, the neighbor of my interviewee who had just gone through a life-threatening situation.) I did pop the question finally: “So how many people had you killed, sir?”

His quick reply: “Around 17.” Then he added, “But that was in a gun battle.” Long ago.

I did not ask whether or not I could quote him. I was not going to let that go. But he made a request that I acceded to—that there wouldn’t be much mention of the missus. (She was busy ushering a stream of sympathizers to the buffet table.) Why, I asked.

“Baka may mag-selos (Someone might get jealous),” was his sheepish reply.

My point is: Some questions have to be asked, special quotes marked with a big asterisk on the notebook. And let no one neg or dumb us down.

And so having asked the question and gotten a dismissive answer, Reuters’ reporter proceeded to write the context of his question: “During [Marcos Sr.’s] rule, the family name became associated with cronyism and billions of dollars worth of missing state wealth. The Marcos family denies wrongdoing … Marcos … still faces a US court judgment connected with $2 billion of plundered wealth under his father’s rule. As head of state, Marcos is immune from US prosecution.”

But not exempt from a journalist’s probing.

—————-

Send feedback to [email protected]