On top of the weather

PHILIPPINE BROADCAST media does its best during natural calamities. It may be because our fragile ecosystem gives them so much practice.

Media workers do not get the work holiday that eases the trial of storms, and like everyone else assigned to emergency services, they have to be on duty when disaster strikes. They are ready at their post, searching out and delivering real-time news in a time of need.

On such days, the need for news is urgent, not your day-to-day “balita” which is suspended for the time being, but information that helps the affected community deal with crisis—advisories about the weather, rescue operations, and the state of peril in places near or far.

News also serves to connect people, giving them a sense of not being alone, making one feel the presence of a larger community, and the links that media provide are a source of real comfort. When that monsoon without a name dumped 1,007 millimeters of rain on Metro Manila and surrounding provinces (August 6 to 8, Project Nationwide Operational Assessment of Hazards [NOAH]), Philippine broadcast media did not disappoint as “first informer” —a term used by a report of the Communications and Society Program of Aspen Institute on “the lessons of Katrina.”

Tracking media’s performance last week was exhilarating, noting the vast improvements in disaster coverage since the Center for Media Freedom & Responsibility (CMFR) first issued guidelines for disaster coverage in August 1990. I daresay that few national broadcast communities in the region can match the level of public service reporting that the Philippine broadcasters provide in such periods of devastation. One factor is relevant: PH broadcast media compared to others in Southeast Asia remain most free of government regulation and the limits that officials impose on coverage.

The 2005 Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA) report on the coverage of disasters in Asia focused not just on how media covered the tsunami that savaged numerous communities in several countries in the region but also other cataclysmic events, including the less dramatic drought.

In varying degrees, the discussions among media practitioners in a conference organized by SEAPA and Friedrich Ebert Stiftung found they were not only reporting stories—the media also help “to heal communities, rebuild lives, keep families intact, raise funds.” The report also points to the role of the press to check on government response and the use of money allocated for this purpose.

With heavy rains falling all through the night of August 4, people recalling still the nightmare of Ondoy, were comforted by their still working sets and cable services, to hear the likes of a Ted Failon on the air. He could move from one story to the next weaving the fragments into a seamless whole, connecting people who needed help to those who could help. The veteran anchors have the edge on this as nothing beats experience. They look and exude competence and credibility, which have a way of assuring the already afflicted as well as those simply anxious and uncertain.

At a later stage, Jessica Soho went into the structural issues of disaster to focus on mitigation, calling attention to some long-term solutions offered by urban planner Felino “Jun” Palafox following Ondoy; and in the spirit of fairness, also asked a government official to respond. All too brief at that point, but it was an important inclusion in the conversation at the height of disaster. I can only hope that the media will not let go of disaster mitigation when the sun begins to shine again.

Weather updates competed with one another in the use of the latest technology and the improved systems of Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical Services Administration (PAGASA) and other disaster-related agencies incorporated under Project NOAH. Most sidelined the pretty mouthing of PAGASA reports, delivering explanations of the weather phenomenon and the scientific terms used by the experts, for layman’s use and understanding. For example, News5 Weather Center’s Seph Ubalde , using technological innovation, explained how the monsoon works and the effects of extreme weather on natural dams and flood-prone areas.

Meanwhile, the teams of reporters fielded by the three networks proved themselves with spirited on-cam, in or out of water stand-uppers. Without encouraging the daring that can place their lives in danger, I do admire how media teams provided a great mix of stories, both the big picture of devastation, the small stories of human interest, along with the instructive communication from officials high and low, the personal and private voices, a community struggling and rising to the challenge of crisis. Their empathetic approach seemed to be more careful about not adding to the misery of evacuees nor intruding into the privacy of the bereaved.

When our area lost our cable service, I felt deprived.

Catastrophe raises all kinds of questions. Interactive radio and TV helps everyone deal with the dire effects of rain and floods. In this area, mainstream media has done well picking up from the new media activity, building on what it does, further enhancing the coordinated lines of rescue and relief.

I do not think the media coverage would have been so comforting if government response had not also gained the capacity it showed during those days. The failure of United States government agencies to respond to Katrina caused further damage when they also failed to provide “critical information out to the popul(ace) at large.” At home, various government agencies have learned from past lessons, making it easier for media to do its job of getting information about these services.

One week after the rains, but with more rains still predicted, I can only be glad and be inspired by the performance on all sides. There is much still to be done, and there is always room for improvement, but for now, those observations can wait.