Part seven of seven. Edwin Espejo published this series on Facebook in June and July 2021. It is republished here in full and lightly copyedited; the introduction below is mine, not his. I am a subject of the series as well as its publisher. It concerns the 2016 campaign and not subsequent events, including the proceedings now before the International Criminal Court. Full editorial note and series index →

Introduction by Nic Gabunada

This is the last installment, and it is the one that has aged most interestingly.

Edwin wrote it in July 2021, a year out from the end of the term. His argument was that the opposition kept losing because it kept explaining its defeats with a villain instead of an assessment — that in appointing itself guardian of decency, it had built a wall between itself and the people it claimed to speak for.

Reading it again now, I would add only this. The word “troll” did more damage to the people who used it than to the people it was aimed at. Every time it was deployed, it told several million voters that their choice had not been real — that they had been operated rather than persuaded. People remember being told that. They remember it longer than the people who said it expect them to.

Here is Edwin’s closing argument.

— Nic Gabunada

Decapitating the ‘Trolls’ of Duterte

Last of a series

By Edwin Espejo | July 3, 2021

The renewed assault against Gabunada and the so called Duterte trolls is nothing new. In fact, expect it to intensify in the coming months.

This has been happening since the first year of the Duterte administration.

If the opposition thinks it will work this time, it is committing a fatal mistake.

It failed to prevent the rise of Duterte in 2016. On the contrary, it may have given rise to his ascendance.

It failed again in 2019 by using the same worn and repudiated narrative of decency and continuity of its rejected leadership.

It has falsely credited the ‘trolls’ of Duterte as being the reason why president Duterte’s popularity and trust rating remain in record fashion.

What it failed to recognize is its own deficiency.

That is where the opposition is failing in the first place. It arrogates upon itself as guardian of morality and political righteousness. In so doing, it effectively built a wall between itself and the people it purports to serve and defend.

Collectively calling Duterte’s social media supporters as trolls is a serious disconnect. Dismissing them as a bunch of paid hacks is a middle class arrogance and display of intellectual snootiness.

Instead of reflecting and assessing where it failed, it continues to cling on to a narrative that only solidified the conviction of the supporters of Duterte that many personalities in the opposition are nothing but sore losers who want to reclaim their lost privileged status.

The opposition can only hope that in the next 12 months or so that its futile efforts will yield a different result.

It is like asking the sun to rise from the west.

Good luck.

(End of series)

Edwin Espejo is a journalist based in General Santos City who has written for Asian Correspondent and MindaNews and shoots for Agence France-Presse. He chaired the General Santos City chapter of the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, and in 2012 was sued for ₱75 million by then-congressman Manny Pacquiao over his reporting. He served as a commissioner of the National Commission of Senior Citizens from January 2021 to April 2026, including when this series was written. Fuller biographical note →

Notes:

Decapitating the ‘trolls’ of Duterte — Edwin Espejo’s seven-part series

Part 1 — Decapitating the ‘trolls’ of Duterte: A 7-Part Retrospective

Part 2 — The Anatomy of a Disconnect: Why the ‘Troll’ Narrative Failed to Explain 2016

Part 3 — The Unseen Momentum: Rewriting the Rules of Engagement

Part 4 — A Target Board Over My Back

Part 5 — The Story That Comes Back Every Election Season

Part 6 — The Ad Men Can Only Be as Good as the Product

Part 7 — Beyond the ‘Troll’ Label: A Reality Check for the Opposition (you are here)

This post was first published on March 25, 2024. The introduction has been revised, The original text has been lightly copyedited for typographical errors. No argument, characterization or judgment in Edwin Espejo’s original has been altered.