Uson and the uses of distraction

Esther Margaux “Mocha” Uson’s talent for provoking heated reactions, whether for or against her, is what makes her a lightning rod on social media. But it doesn’t always make her an effective spokesperson for the Duterte administration’s ideas.

When some members of the consultative committee brought up the idea of asking Uson to campaign for awareness of the draft federal charter, her critics howled. But that was a whimper compared to the reactions that greeted a video, now viral, of Uson and blogger Drew Olivar introducing the subject of federalism with a chant that included the Tagalog slang for a woman’s privates—with suggestive choreography thrown in.

“How can the public appreciate federalism if this is the manner by which they intend to explain it?” Assemblyman Zia Alonto Adiong asked on Twitter. “The issue on federalism is not a joke. Why fool around? Federalism deserves better than toilet humor.” That is true, but it rests on the assumption that Uson intended to draw attention to the federalist proposal in the first place.

Institutions, including those of government, always try to present information in a way that presents their actions and choices in the best possible light. We see that in the anti-communist discourse that has been around for decades. More recently, we see that in some police officials’ attempts to convince the public that all those killed in anti-drug operations had it coming and that there was no longer any need to review police operatives’ conduct and use of force in these assignments.

Thirty years ago, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky presented a compelling case for how the overlapping circles of government and private media organizations “manufacture consent” for the elite’s agenda. The rise of social media has disrupted that dynamic. Now, individuals like Uson can change the public conversation simply by drawing attention to what their principals want highlighted. Or by creating a distraction that pulls the spotlight away from certain issues. In some cases, they can create so much noise that they drown out the necessary voices of criticism and dissent.

Eyes on the prize, folks: it’s all well and good to try to hold Uson accountable. She is, after all, a public official who’s supposed to live by such norms as commitment to public interest, professionalism, and political neutrality. But let’s remember to put more effort into understanding the administration’s federalist proposal, both its potential harm and potential good, and not be too distracted by Uson’s shenanigans. What, really, is she trying to distract us from?