?Journalism,? G.K. Chesterton once complained, ?largely consists in saying ?Lord Jones is dead? to people who never knew Lord Jones was alive.? In this era of manufactured celebrity and mass-marketed name recall, media is still the fastest way to transform virtually unknown people into easily identifiable ?personalities??usually right before an election and hopefully before the newspapers announce their death.

But does media shape the preference of voters, assuming that they can differentiate one candidate from another? And does awareness of potential candidates through media translate into actual votes on election day?

The results of a study released last week by the Department of Communication Research of the University of the Philippines seemed to answer the first question in the affirmative, while also tending to say ?yes? to the second. Then again, people dreaming of high public office often take the view of aspiring stars in show business, who hold that any publicity is good publicity?and that those who aren?t mentioned in television, radio or print might as well be six feet under the ground.

?Impression: Importance of Media Presence in the 2010 National Elections? was based on data gathered and research conducted by UP students under the supervision of Dr. Jose Lacson Jr. and professor Almond Pilar Aguila from November to December last year. The study was based on discussions with voters in 10 focus groups and a survey involving 681 respondents in Metro Manila and nearby provinces, all of whom are bombarded daily with news and information from print, broadcast, billboards and the Internet.

Indeed, the potential voters who joined the study said that 98 percent of them watched television, affirming the dominance of that medium across age groups and socioeconomic classes. Radio (62 percent), the Internet (42), broadsheet newspapers (35) and tabloids (24) also had significant ?consumers? in the media-saturated study area.

The respondents and focus group participants mentioned the names of 37 potential presidential candidates for 2010, a virtual newsmakers? smorgasbord that included everyone from Susan Roces to Vilma Santos, Manny Pacquiao to Mike Velarde, Jun Lozada to Jocjoc Bolante and Chavit Singson to Jamby Madrigal. In David Letterman reverse-Top Ten fashion, the respondents ranked the 10 people most perceived to run for president next year, with the first being the lowest: President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (6 percent), Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay (12), former President Joseph Estrada (16), Senator Francis Escudero (22), Senator Panfilo Lacson (25), Metro Manila Development Authority Chairman Bayani Fernando (26), Senator Manuel Roxas (34), Vice President Noli de Castro (45), Senator Loren Legarda (48) and Senator Manuel Villar (79).

Significantly, 83 percent of the respondents noted that these people were in the media mainly because they were engaged in early campaigning. Only 16 percent of those surveyed believed that the publicity involving the potential candidates was work-related and had nothing to do with their plans for high office.

* * *

But because the UP study also wanted to find out if media awareness could translate into votes, the researchers asked if the high media profile was helping potential candidates or not. After all, majority of the respondents (53 percent) admitted that they were strongly influenced by media coverage of these would-be presidential aspirants.

So the researchers broke down the attributes of the top 10 potential candidates into three categories (slogan, symbol and advocacies) that they felt constituted the reason for their media visibility and asked the respondents to rate if the 10 were actually benefitting from their name recall or not. Replies were either ?undesirable? or ?desirable,? in order to gauge if the slogans and other attributes associated with each of the 10 actually translated into favorable impressions?and, hopefully, votes next May.

Of the 10, seven potential candidates scored a perfect three ?desirables? in all categories?Villar, Legarda, De Castro, Roxas, Escudero, Estrada and Binay. This means that the chosen slogans (say, ?Sipag at Tiyaga? for Villar or ?Erap para sa Mahirap? for Estrada), symbols (Binay?s progressive Makati) and advocacies (women empowerment for Legarda) not only stuck but were also viewed favorably by the respondents.

The MMDA?s Fernando scored two out of three possible ?desirables,? getting approving marks for his ?Metro Gwapo? slogan and his advocacy to ease traffic, but earning a thumbs-down for his trademark pink-and-blue symbolic theme. (At least Fernando can bring the UP study to Senator Miguel Zubiri to prove that he?s moving up in a survey that he didn?t commission.)

President Arroyo and Lacson were the only two members of the top 10 who scored only one ?desirable? out of three. The President got her thums-up for her advocacy to improve the economy, while Lacson got disapproving marks in both symbol and slogan (?Kamay na Bakal?).

Finally, the respondents were asked the Big Question: If they were to vote on the day they were interviewed, who would they choose for president? Villar, the potential candidate with the highest media profile, was picked by the most respondents, with 15 percent, followed by Escudero (10 percent). The study noted that Escudero ?ranked second although he did not belong to the upper half of [the top 10] potential candidates.?

The UP study tends to show a distinct correlation between media exposure and ?winnability? ? something that armies of publicists have sworn by for years. Now let?s see if the next elections?the only true gauge of the study?s accuracy ?will verify that widely held belief.