Media Coverage of an Oil Spill

Journalists headed for Guimaras with little knowledge and even less protection
Media Coverage of an Oil Spill
By Ma. Diosa Labiste

N AUG. 11, the oil tanker MT Solar sank off the coast of Guimaras province, causing the worst oil spill in the country.
MT Solar was carrying more than two million liters of bunker fuel from Petron Corp., some 300,000 liters of which were spilled, affecting the coastal ecosystems and communities in Guimaras, Iloilo, and Negros Occidental.
As the mangrove, sea grass and coral reefs were smothered by bunker fuel, the fishing industry, the main source of livelihood in Guimaras, was also endangered. The tourism industry was another casualty.  People living near the beaches moved to evacuation centers to escape the toxic fumes that were making them sick.
Local journalists were among the first to respond to the environmental disaster.  In less than a week after the accident, the newspapers and television networks, having realized the extent of the oil spill damage, sent teams of reporters to Guimaras, giving prominent play to the environmental disaster.
The environmental coalition SOS (Save our Seas) monitored press stories online from Aug. 11 to Sept 11. It scanned the online newspapers and new websites for stories on the disaster. The results of SOS’s media monitoring were shared with local reporters during a discussion on Oct. 7 organized by the Center for Community Journalism and Development in Iloilo City.
The eight-week monitoring period yielded a total of 311 stories, with the bulk of them published from the second to the fourth week of the environmental disaster. (See Table 1) Towards the sixth, seventh, and eighth weeks after the disaster, coverage on the oil spill waned. From 66 stories in the third week, only 9 were written in the eighth week.
Interest not sustained
Weeks 4, 5, and 6 coincided with the visits of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and other politicians who brought with them reporters from Manila. Petron also brought its own publicists who met with managers, editors, and publishers of local radio stations and newspapers.
In the weeks that followed, the stories on the oil spill, both online and in newspapers, thinned out considerably. Gone were the slice-of-life and environmental stories that dominated the first four weeks of coverage.  Taking the place of these stories were articles on the awarding of compensation to the affected sectors even as the vessel, which was still holding thousands of gallons of bunker fuel, continued to leak at the bottom of the sea.
The topics generated from the online tracking of stories were varied but  some shared a common focus. (See Table 2)
For example, in the first week, the stories were initially about the sinking of the oil tanker and the damage it could bring to the island province of Guimaras. There were also reports on the oil slick that threatened the coastal towns in Negros and Iloilo. Prominent among the stories in the first week were the appeals for help by Guimaras Gov. JC Rahman Nava and the national government which sought foreign assistance in containing the oil spill damage.
In the second week, 61 stories were generated online. The topics involved what to do with the sunken tanker and its oil, the arrival of experts, and the effects of the incident on the marine ecosystem and local tourism. Articles that appeared that week also focused on compensation and fund sourcing for the relief and rehabilitation of affected areas.  In this week, too, the Guimaras oil spill was declared a national disaster. There was a story that said the government had approved the use of a chemical dispersant, a move that was later criticized by scientists who said that the toxic spray could become dangerous once it reaches the shore.

Information, true and false
Residents in oil-spill affected villages in Guimaras started leaving their homes near the beach and a government official said the oil spill would be washed away by two or three typhoons.
Taking the cue from an environment group that said large quantities of human hair can absorb the bunker fuel, the media carried stories on beauty parlors and prisons donating hair for the Guimaras clean-up. But Melvin Purzuelo of SOS said that hair is no more effective in absorbing globs of oil than rice straw, coconut husk, and rags. Reports of hair cuttings for Guimaras continued up to the fourth week when experts advised against using hair to contain the spread of the bunker fuel.
The fourth and fifth week of coverage generated stories on the clean-up, evacuation, more people getting sick from inhaling toxic fumes, findings of the marine inquiry board on the sinking of the oil tanker, and President Arroyo who, on her visit to Guimaras, declared that the oil spills had been “effectively contained.”
On Sept. 15, during a scientific conference on the bio-physical impact of the oil spill, scientists and marine experts from all over the country issued a statement against the use of chemical dispersants on shallow water habitats, and sought the imme-diate removal of the sunken vessel. Apparently, the voices of science were ignored because dispersants continued to be used in mangrove areas and the tanker remained at the bottom of the sea.
The sixth to eighth weeks of coverage produced stories on the lingering effects of the oil spill on the marine ecosystem and fishing industry in the province. The reports also focused on the clean-up and the removal of sludge, on the thousands of people who got sick from inhaling the bunker oil fumes, and the promise of the govern-ment to remove the oil from the sunken tanker by December.
Jaro Archbishop Angel Lagda-meo, head of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, was reported to have issued a statement urging authorities to remove the sunken tanker. Scientists continued to raise their voices against the spraying of chemical dispersants. Finally, on the last week of October, the National Disaster Coordinating Council ordered a stop to the use of dispersants.
In the eighth week, Petron declared that it had cleaned up a 130-km area, a claim that was disputed two months later by residents of affected villages in Nueva Valencia town, Guimaras. In a petition circulated on the last week of December, the villagers demanded that Petron return because their communities were far from thoroughly cleaned as claimed.
SOS’s Purzuelo appealed to reporters to give a voice to communities affected by the oil spill because they should have a say on how they will go about bringing back the fish, the shellfish, mangroves, sea grass, and their way of life.

First on the spot
Starting their coverage on the third day after the disaster, Iloilo reporters and photo-graphers were among the first to respond to the Guimaras oil spill. Through their reports, the country and the world came to know of impact of the disaster on the people and the environment.
Initially, the journalists themselves had no idea of the extent of the disaster. When the stench of bunker fuel assaulted them, bandanas and towels came in handy as they toured communities to photograph and interview fishermen, clean-up crew members, and local officials.
The job posed its own risks. A photographer swam in contaminated waters to get closer to a marine sanctuary. He went home with itchy skin and clothes soaked in bunker fuel. Some reporters covered groups of people who were spraying the sea and shorelines with the toxic dispersants.
Red Batario, coordinator of the International News Safety Institute for Southeast Asia, said that covering oil spills count as one of the most dangerous assignments for journalists. Yet, journalists themselves are usually not aware of this.
There are three possible ways of being exposed to bunker fuel. These are through inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact. The effects on one’s health depend on the length of exposure to the fuel. Symptoms may include headache, irritation of the eyes and skin, and respiratory tract infection.
“Journalists must be given briefings before being sent to affected areas and provided with safety equipment like masks, boots and gloves,” said Batario in a forum with Iloilo journalists.
According to Batario, he sent out an advisory on oil spill safety tips to news organizations in Manila and Iloilo. “Apparently it was ignored because I saw video footage and photographs of reporters covering the oil spill without safety gear,” he said.
Batario said reporters could prevent exposure to bunker fuel by wearing N-95 face masks, boots, long-sleeved shirts, and goggles. They should also follow advisories on the consumption of fish, shellfish, and other seafood.
Iloilo reporters said it was only in the second and third week that they became aware of the ill effects of the oil spill on their health. They were busy breaking the story in the first week to worry about their own safety. Afterwards, some experienced dizziness and persistent coughing.
Environment groups like Greenpeace and SOS-Guimaras later offered masks to journalists covering the oil spill.

Using science
A month after the oil spill, scientists, marine ecosystem experts, and environmental advocates met to bring in scientists to the oil spill problem, something that was neglected in the flurry to help Guimaras province.
In a statement signed by close to 30 scientists during the Sept. 15 meeting on the bio-physical aspects of the oil spill, the signatories said that because the incident was a complex environ-mental problem, the response to it should be “science-based and properly coordinated.”
Three weeks later, a group of Iloilo reporters sat down with Dr. Jurgenne Honculada Primavera, a senior scientist from the South-east Asian Fisheries Development Center-Aquaculture Depart-ment. An expert on mangroves, Primavera discussed the chemical composition of bunker fuel, its toxicity, and what happens when bunker fuel is released to the sea. Fuel first spreads and then undergoes evaporation, dispersion, dis-solution, emulsification, oxida-tion, and biodegradation. She also provided members of media with a list of online resources and experts on oil spills.
Reporters who attended the discussions said they found themselves grappling for facts in the first week of coverage as there were few agencies that could give them substantial information. For example, there was no available baseline date on communities and coastal marine ecosystems affected by the oil spill. There were few experts who could assess the consequences of the spill. Sometimes, even their assessments varied.
The Guimaras oil spill coverage was pretty much a free-for-all. Journalists from Manila came in the first week and left towards the third or fourth week after the disaster. But many stayed with the story up to the eighth week, albeit farther away from the scene of the disaster.
The incident achieved prominence when President Arroyo and other politicians from Manila arrived, bringing with them food and cash. But two months after the disaster, the coverage lessened even as the long-term effects of the oil spill began showing themselves such as in the rising number of people getting ill. Reporters moved on to other stories like Charter change.

More to be learned
The oil spill, like any environmental issue, was a  complicated story. Journalists should therefore exert more effort to learn about it so  they can write about it well and accurately. The public should also be informed of the effects of the oil spill so they can take action.
More stories about the Guimaras oil spill have yet to be written. On Nov. 23 and 24, a scientific conference capping more than two months of study on the oil spill was attended by scientists and experts from top universities and private groups in the country. The study supposedly aimed to draw up long-term rehabilitation and recovery plans.
But a statement by the Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting in Nueva Valencia declared that the scientific conference fell short of addressing the main concerns of the people such as alternative livelihood, assisting those exposed to toxic bunker fuel fumes, a thorough clean-up of the affected areas, and the immediate retrieval of the bunker fuel in the sunken vessel.
The statement also said “deterrent measures and punitive actions” were not discussed in the scientific conference which excluded affected residents and members of media, although a press conference was called at the close of the second day.
The statement, which is being circulated for signing, also called for a boycott of Petron products. n

Ma. Diosa Labiste is project coordinator for the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines.

Comments are closed.