Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD
It was a humid afternoon in a small café somewhere in Quezon City.n Quezon City. I was sitting quietly at another table with my daughter, Juliana Rizalhea, sipping her favorite iced chocolate, when we both overheard a loud conversation from a nearby group of friends. They were arguing about a news report on the President’s new infrastructure project. One of them, a young engineer, explained that the plan could ease traffic and create thousands of jobs. But before he could finish, another friend interrupted, scoffing: “Ah, that’s fake! Coming from him? Impossible.” Nobody bothered to check the details. Nobody read the report. The judgment was instant — not on the project, but on the person behind it. I looked at Juliana, who simply shook her head, and I told her softly, “Anak, that’s what they call source bias — when people judge truth based on who said it, not what was said.”
That brief moment stayed with me. Because in that small café scene, I saw a mirror of what is happening to our country. Source bias doesn’t just distort facts; it erases the chance for truth to even be heard.
I have always believed that leadership, no matter how imperfect, deserves a fair hearing. Yet in this age of algorithm and outrage, fairness has become a scarce virtue. What I see today is not merely political division — it is psychological conditioning. It is the Psychological Dynamics of Source Bias at work, shaping the way we see, hear, and even feel about our leaders, regardless of what they do or say.
This, sadly, is the predicament of President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. (PBBM). The President now faces an invisible enemy — not rebellion, not insurgency, but perception. The moment he speaks, the comment section explodes. Before his words even settle, interpretations rise like wildfire. A single slip of the tongue becomes proof of incompetence. A well-intentioned statement becomes propaganda. His achievements — though real — are dismissed as theatrics. And his failures, amplified like echoes in a tunnel, define his entire being in the public eye.
It is painful to watch, not because we must agree with him, but because we must understand the psychology behind what is happening. Source bias is the human tendency to judge the truth of a message not by its content but by the person who delivers it. When people have already decided that they dislike the source, no truth can penetrate. The mind closes, the heart hardens, and the eyes refuse to see. This kind of bias slowly erodes the integrity of leadership, not because the leader stops working, but because the people stop believing.
And when belief is gone, governance collapses from within. A leader who speaks with sincerity is mocked; a policy born of good intention is dismissed as deceit. The Psychological Dynamics of Source Bias turn credibility into a casualty — they kill trust without firing a bullet. They destroy not only the reputation of a leader but also the moral fabric of a nation that depends on faith in its institutions.
History has shown us how this phenomenon leads to downfall. In the post-war era, leaders who once inspired nations fell not from corruption or war, but from relentless public conditioning. Take Winston Churchill — the man who led Britain through its darkest days was voted out after victory because the people grew weary of his voice. It was not his policy that failed, but perception that shifted. Once bias sets in, even greatness becomes invisible.
That is what source bias does — it blinds a nation to its own good. Even if PBBM works tirelessly in his final years to uplift the economy, restore agricultural stability, and protect national sovereignty, it will mean little to those who already decided that everything he does is wrong. In their eyes, he can do nothing right anymore. And that, perhaps, is the most dangerous point of no return in a democracy: when truth loses its power to heal because it has already been condemned by the mouth that speaks it.
It’s easy to say that leaders should simply prove themselves through action. But in an age ruled by perception, even action can be misinterpreted. A new farm-to-market road becomes “photo opportunity.” A foreign investment meeting becomes “damage control.” A gesture of compassion becomes “acting.” The bias is not just emotional — it is systemic, reinforced by social media influencers, partisan journalists, and echo chambers that profit from outrage.
The Psychological Dynamics of Source Bias do not only destroy the image of a leader; they weaken the faith of a people in the very concept of leadership. They breed cynicism, and cynicism is the death of national unity. When people stop believing in anyone, they stop believing in themselves. The downfall of any nation begins not in corruption or poverty, but in the day its citizens lose the capacity to discern truth from prejudice.
And so I write this not as a defense of PBBM, but as a warning to a nation. When we allow our biases to dictate our judgment, we become prisoners of our own emotions. When we reject truth simply because we dislike the source, we are not proving intelligence — we are confessing blindness.
In the end, leadership can survive criticism but not disbelief. A country can survive mistakes, but not mistrust. And when the Psychological Dynamics of Source Bias rule over reason, no government, no matter how sincere, can lead a people who refuse to listen.
__
