N.B. – This was published in The Lobbyist (April 12) where I write a column (Subtext).

It’s a victory for an advocacy. But it is a pyrrhic one for what could be a harmless cause, depending on the context and scope of your struggle.

Starting April 11, the controversial game show Willing Willie temporarily goes off the air until April 22. As regards what will happen next, the show’s equally controversial host, Willie Revillame, said last April 8 that he might leave showbusiness altogether due to the criticisms against him. Yes, it’s somewhat a victory for people like me who believe that this aberration of a “reality game show” should be taken off the air. But there’s a need to be level-headed as the decision of TV5 management is just temporary. And even assuming that Willing Willie goes off the air permanently, what prevents TV5 from coming up with a repackaged show which still has scantily clad women, gyrating bodies and human indignity in exchange for cash?

One will never run out of colorful, pejorative words to describe Willie Revillame. No less than a senator has described him as incorrigible and unrepentant. Some celebrities, including those who are employed by TV5, have used their Twitter accounts to strongly denounce the alleged child abuse that happened in Willing Willie last March 12 where a six-year old boy danced in a sexually suggestive manner.

As the Department of Social Work and Development (DSWD) and Commission on Human Rights (CHR) take the cudgels for the allegedly abused boy, many concerned citizens and groups have lent their voices to a common demand that Willing Willie be taken off the air, not temporarily but permanently. Just like them, I strongly believe that child abuse must not be tolerated in whatever form.

Perhaps it is the soft spot that all of us have for children that makes the cause quite popular and, consequently, makes Willie Revillame notorious. That he continues to claim that all he wants is to help the poor by giving away cash and other prizes makes him repugnant. That he continues to deny any wrongdoing all the more puts public opinion against him.

Upholding the rights of children is quite popular among people for the simple reason that no one in his or her right mind would go against it. It is like heeding the call for protecting the environment where everyone should do their share. An advocate of popular causes like children’s rights is unlikely to be killed for his or her crusade. Of course, given that Philippine society is far from “normal,” being killed for so-called harmless advocacies is still a possibility, as in the case of Dr. Leonard Co who was both a journalist and an environmentalist.

The same cannot be said for those denouncing corruption in government institutions. They’re not just putting their lives on the line but also their loved ones’. Reporters who investigate and citizens who blow the whistle could end up being silenced permanently for doing what they think is right.

Activists, on the other hand, who issue various demands including the ouster of the President either get abducted or killed in the process. Their causes can be hardly classified as “harmless” in the sense that they obviously suffer as a result of their controversial stance.

Going back to the controversy surrounding Willing Willie, what we have is an advocacy that could be considered both convenient and harmless. The challenge right now for the advocates of children’s rights and responsible broadcasting is to take the advocacy to the highest level. How can this be done? At least five ways immediately come to mind:

1. Request that TV5 permanently cancel Willing Willie and that it be replaced not by another “reality game show” but by a news and public affairs or educational program that provides relevant information to its audiences;
2. Demand that ALL networks stop the exploitation of children, women and other marginalized sectors (whether as talents or contestants) in all of their television programs;
3. Require ALL networks to require their journalists and entertainers to undergo periodic training in responsible broadcasting, particularly on ethics, children’s rights and gender sensitivity;
4. Institutionalize mechanisms for periodic consultations with network owners and advertisers regarding their media contents; and
5. Organize a Media Consumers Advocacy Group that can commend media organizations for excellence in news, public affairs and entertainment or take erring ones to task for failure to adhere to the highest professional and ethical standards.

At present, the claim of victory in the wake of the temporary non-airing of Willing Willie is pyrrhic at best as there is no guarantee of its permanence. And even if it gets canned permanently, nothing prevents TV5 from replacing it with an equally abhorrent “reality game show.” The perceived success would come at a great cost if there is failure to sustain the campaign. The struggle therefore continues for better programming and more responsibility in broadcasting, notwithstanding the temporary gains from the campaign to take Willing Willie off the air.