Photo credit: NTF-ELCAC, Congress PH, Rob Rances / FB

A report claiming that public perception of Ramil Madriaga has shifted in his favor is now sparking intense debate—this time not just about the findings, but about how they were measured.

According to Insightspedia, a social listening analysis showed that after April 14, more people online began viewing Madriaga as a credible witness. But not everyone is buying it.

Former government official Lorraine Badoy didn’t hold back, blasting the report and linking it to what she described as misuse of public funds. In a fiery statement, she accused certain groups of pouring resources into media operations instead of essential services like healthcare, infrastructure, and education.

For Badoy, the issue goes beyond a single report—it’s about where government money is allegedly going, and whether it’s being used to shape narratives rather than serve the public.

Meanwhile, political commentator Rob Rances took a more technical approach, questioning the credibility of the so-called “study.” He argued that the data was based on social listening tools like YouScan, which track online conversations but don’t necessarily reflect broader public opinion.

Rances explained that unlike scientific surveys, social listening lacks key elements like random sampling, proper weighting, and a clear margin of error. Instead, he said, it captures whoever is most active online—often a small but loud group.

“This measures who is louder online, not what the public actually believes offline,” he pointed out.

He also raised concerns about how easily such data can be manipulated. Without transparency on factors like total mentions, unique users, or safeguards against bots and coordinated campaigns, any apparent surge in support could simply reflect organized online activity—not a genuine shift in public sentiment.

The debate now highlights a bigger question: in today’s digital age, how much weight should be given to online trends when gauging public opinion?