I keep returning to the observation that when fighting a war, the first obstacle either side needs to overcome is that generals always end up fighting the last war when they start a new one. Just as it took decades to outgrow the habits inculcated by the people power of the ’80s and ’90s, it will take time to overcome the habits that have become ingrained due to past impeachments, even if the political landscape has changed drastically. The biggest change is in media consumption when media is supposed to be the given, and everyone is accordingly fighting for airtime. But what is the point of that fight if no one is watching?

The National Momentum Survey, which gave us an August snapshot of public opinion on the impeachment, shows that when it comes to never tuning in or tuning out, 50.3 percent say they did not follow the trial. In this era of “digital bombardment,” as the author, James Marriott, writes in his disturbing book, “The New Dark Ages—The End of Reading and the Dawn of a Post-Literate Society,” this isn’t surprising, and it’s well to consider the ongoing shift that has Marriott so worried: that we are headed to “a post-literate future that resembles the pre-literate past: mystical, tribal and autocratic.”

What is surprising is how we aren’t quite there yet, as far as Marriott’s fears are concerned. While 23.3 percent believe the defense is better than the prosecution (15.2 percent), people are split on whether evidence (36.8 percent) or public opinion (36.3 percent) should be the basis of a senator’s judgment, while 10 percent believe it should be conscience; 8 percent think it should be allied political interests. Interestingly, among the subgroups, the biggest percentages for conscience are the pro-Marcos at 18 percent, and of allied political interests, the pro-Duterte at 11 percent. Interestingly, the pro-Marcos and pro-Duterte roughly agree on public opinion; the pro-opposition and independents prefer evidence. But, really, either way, it’s pretty close even within these sub-groups. The split also exists geographically, exactly even in Metro Manila, opinion marginally ahead in the rest of Luzon, evidence marginally ahead in the Visayas and Mindanao.

Asked whether or not they agree that there were irregularities in the spending of confidential funds by the Veep, 43.3 percent agreed, 39 percent disagreed, with 12.9 percent unsure. In Metro Manila, only 1.4 percent separates those who agree (45.6 percent) from those who disagree (44.2 percent). The rest of Luzon is overwhelmingly convinced: 50.1 percent agree, only 29.7 percent disagree (Mindanao is the reverse: 48.4 percent disagree and only 29.6 percent agree); while in the Visayas, only 4 percent separates those who disagree (46 percent) from those who agree (42.1 percent). Gen Z seems most convinced: 51.9 percent agree and only 31.1 percent disagree. Very slightly more Millennials disagree (47.5 percent) than agree (38.9 percent) but more Gen X agree (41.6 percent) than disagree (40.7 percent) while slightly more Baby Boomers agree (36.6 percent) than disagree (33.4 percent).

All these numbers, of course, should be read according to other numbers from the same figures I’d mentioned before: the overall factional identification (or not) of people. To review: 67 percent pictured themselves as independents or not a supporter of either the administration or the opposition while 17.5 percent self-identified as supporting the administration; and those supporting the opposition comprised 10.4 percent. If attached to personalities, 45.5 percent are independents while 28.9 percent are supporters of the Dutertes, supporters of the Marcoses are 11.6 percent, and supporters of the opposition, 9.6 percent.

No surprise, then, 47.9 percent as of August said it was too early to decide on conviction, while convict (24.4 percent) exceeds acquit (16 percent). Subgroup results are interesting: for independents, 53.7 percent say too early to decide, 21.3 percent convict, 12.7 percent acquit. Pro-Marcos has 44.7 percent convict, 37.2 percent too early to decide, 8.7 percent acquit; pro-Duterte has, very interestingly, 55.5 percent too early to decide, 25.1 percent acquit, 10.2 percent convict; pro-opposition has 66.8 percent convict, 16.5 percent too early to decide, 10.6 percent acquit. Gen Z (27.2 percent vs 9 percent) Gen X (26.2 percent vs 15.8 percent) and Boomers (35.9 percent vs 17.8 percent) have more for conviction than acquittal; only Millennials have more for acquittal (21.8 percent) than conviction (16.3 percent).

All things considered, if the majority are keeping an open mind, their being divided on the approach to reaching a conclusion isn’t a cause for worry: there will come a time for a reckoning, anyway. What strikes me is the common-sense attitudes that seem to be prevailing: that you need to let things play out before you decide; that evidence matters, and public opinion matters, but partisanship matters far less than either of the above. But that, on the whole, there is a slight—very slight, to be sure, except within certain groups—edge for conviction rather than acquittal.

While we increasingly have the collective memory of a goldfish, we still have a lingering realization that we have been down this road before and there are, therefore, things to expect in the normal course of the proceedings. Most important of all is that we have a general sense of what makes a strong versus a weak case: the public opinion aspect where the audience’s views will, naturally, form part of the considerations of the verdict (it cannot buck public opinion unless explained very well).