(PART 1) Reporting ‘Yolanda’: More needed from the media

First of Two Parts

 

ON NOVEMBER 4, international weather stations and local government agency Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA) warned that tropical storm Yolanda (international name: Haiyan) was expected to enter the Philippine Area of Responsibility. Earlier reports focused on its development as a “super typhoon,” which was expected to bring huge amounts of rains and strong winds.

(PART 2) Reporting ‘Yolanda’: More needed from the media

PAGASA weather forecasters said that Yolanda would be the “strongest typhoon in the world this year.” Days before it struck, the media tracked the typhoon’s location, speed, and strength and reported on the preparations of local government units and residents in the Bicol and Visayas regions particularly the areas which will be hit directly. News reports described as “delubyo (catastrophic)” what would happen to areas placed under signal number four if they did not prepare.

On November 8, Yolanda made six landfalls: in Guiuan, Eastern Samar; Tolosa, Leyte; Daanbantayan, Cebu; Bantayan Island, Cebu; Concepcion, Iloilo; and Busuanga, Palawan.

As of December 15, the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council had tallied the devastation cost at P35 billion with 6,057 individuals reported dead, 27,468 injured and 1,779 still missing.

Some 28 countries have pledged donations and offered humanitarian and medical assistance to the Philippines. These are Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Denmark, European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Luxemburg, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and Vietnam.

Media as the first information provider

“The media have roles to play before, during, and after a disaster. In many incidents, journalists are among the first to arrive on the scene and report on events as they unfold; they are first informers in the disaster zone. Media and communication technologies can greatly aid or hinder efforts to prepare citizens for threats; convey important, lifesaving information during a crisis; assist in rescues, reunions, and relocations; support relief efforts; and promote accountability after the fact. At the same time, journalists are themselves vulnerable to the hazardous situations on which they report.” (“First Informers in the Disaster Zone: The Lessons of Katrina“, Aspen Institute Communications and Society Program, 2006)

Filipino journalists were among the first to report on the onslaught of typhoon Yolanda. A day before Yolanda hit the Philippine Area of Responsibility, the major television networks fielded reporters to the areas expected to be hit, including Leyte, Bicol, Bohol, Samar, Oriental Mindoro, Aklan, and Masbate. GMA-7 had reporters in Leyte and Bohol two days ahead of the storm. Some of the television networks’ lead anchors also reported from Tacloban, Leyte, among them Ted Failon of ABS-CBN 2’s TV Patrol and Jiggy Manicad of GMA-7’s 24 Oras.

The media were the first to inform the public about the ongoing evacuation in some affected areas, the government’s preparation for the typhoon, the precautionary measures being taken, and other information that could save lives.

Before communication lines were cut by the typhoon, the media were the first to show the strength and wrath of Yolanda, airing footage of falling trees, damaged houses and flooded streets. In the aftermath of the typhoon, the media reported on the extent of the devastation, the urgent need for food and potable water, how the government was responding to the needs of those affected, and the overflowing aid from other countries, among others. At the same time, journalists were themselves at risk while in the areas on which they were reporting.

The media also served as messengers of “heartbreaking news” or “quickly-scribbled reassurances.” Survivors “put their pleas into writing” and gave them to the journalists assigned in the area with the hope that their messages will reach those they were intended for.

Both the government and the media have been criticized for their handling and coverage of the typhoon. Netizens said the government’s response was “slow” despite the outpouring of assistance from other countries, while the media “didn’t have extensive coverage” of the disaster.

On November 9, a social media user tagged the Center for Media Freedom & Responsibility (CMFR): “ABSCBNNews, ANCALERTS, gmanews, solartvnews. Bakit wala kayong coverage re YolandaPH? Back to regular prog’g agad?” This was also raised by another netizen, who said that GMA-7’s 24 Oras on Nov. 8 cut Manicad’s report to “make way for their teleserye.”

Other netizens said the coverage was “so sparse.” With the presence of foreign media like CNN whose reporters “went out of their way to interview” on ground zero itself, some wondered what “excuses” the local media had for not being able to report on what was happening in the affected areas.

Roads and bridges were not passable, operations of sea and air ports were cancelled, and power and communication interruption/outage were experienced in most regions affected by the typhoon. These made it difficult for field reporters to send their stories out. News stations in Manila had to rerun earlier reports as they had yet to receive information from their reporters. Overall, CMFR thought Philippine news organizations gave the catastrophe and related issues enough space and time. But CMFR made critical notes about the quality of some of the reporting.

While some criticism was deserved, the media should be credited for deploying their reporters to the areas the typhoon was expected to hit and which it eventually did, thus providing audiences outside the devastated areas first hand information on the power of the typhoon and the damage it was causing. The areas being devastated were themselves not getting the information, but through no fault of the media, not only because power lines were soon down, but also because they were focused on survival.

Clarifying Terms

The possibility of a storm surge throughout the province especially in low-lying areas was mentioned in the reports. However, both the media and some government agencies failed to explain what a storm surge is and how destructive it could be. Yolanda had maximum sustained winds of 315 kilometers per hour, with storm surges reaching as high as seven meters that caused severe damage in parts of the Visayas and Southern Luzon. The information could have been provided days before the typhoon struck, when it could have made a difference, being of little or no use on the day of Yolanda’s landfalls.

The media did report on President Benigno Aquino III’s November 7 speech warning that the typhoon could generate waves (alon) as high as six meters in the places likely to be devastated. But the media neither emphasized the danger nor the necessity to prepare for it. The media presented no visual or graphic presentations that could have described what a storm surge was and could do.

A major media lapse was their failure to report on the warning two days before Yolanda made landfall by Project NOAH (Nationwide Operational Assessment of Hazards), a government weather monitoring agency linked with the Department of Science and Technology. NOAH had posted detailed explanations in Filipino about storm surges. Its infographic, in apparent awareness of the need for the public to be informed, was also in Filipino and was posted in the Official Gazette, the official journal of the Republic of the Philippines. But none of the networks, broadsheets and online news sites picked up the information before the typhoon struck, publishing and airing the information only after, when it was too late.

If the people who were eventually affected had no inkling of the perils they faced, not even the reporters who went to Tacloban had any sense of the storm’s magnitude despite the warning that Yolanda will be “the strongest tropical cyclone on record to make landfall in world history.” The reaction of Nikko Dizon of the Philippine Daily Inquirer was typical. She said: “Nothing prepared me for this horrifying scene in Tacloban City when I arrived there at 10 in the morning of Saturday, Nov. 9. All the veteran reporters and battle-tested security forces that I asked told me it was the worst disaster they had seen in their lives.”

The term “storm surge” was not familiar to the public. People could not construct its meaning and they could not relate it to anything in previous experience. “Tsunami” however was something they had seen in movies or in news reports, or actually experienced. Even Presidential Communications Operations Office Secretary Sonny Coloma said the storm surge “could’ve been explained as a tsunami“—which of course the scientists would not do as tsunamis are different from storm surges in their origin. (Rappler.com)

In an interview with CNN, Tacloban City Mayor Alfred Romualdez said that “phrasing the warning as a tsunami could have meant more survivors.” But comparing a storm surge to a tsunami would have been “inaccurate, dangerous, and irresponsible,” as Project NOAH’s executive director Dr. Mahar Lagmay declared. (Rappler.com) The reality is that a storm surge and its consequences to life and property could have been explained in scientifically accurate but understandable terms through the media. It is media’s responsibility to bridge the gap of understanding and to relate the unknown to something that people knew.

In his morning radio program on dzMM on Nov. 19, Ted Failon, rather than acknowledging the media’s lapses, blamed PAGASA’s alleged inability to respond to storm surges. Failon said the agency “failed to save the life of its own employee when the storm surge leveled its station on the Tacloban coast.” (“When Ted talks trash“, Yahoo!)

In response to Failon’s commentary, the president of the Philippine Weathermen Employees Association (PWEA) Ramon Agustin said that while the agency respected Failon’s opinion, he took exception to his claim that “most PAGASA people are not aware of what a storm surge is,” pointing out that one of its personnel died in the storm surge because she was following PAG-ASA’s general rule for personnel not to leave their posts “at all cost if a locality is under threat from a tropical cyclone.” (dzRH News) Failon consequently issued an apology in his morning radio program, but did not note that while there were ample warnings about the possibility of and the dangers from storm surges, the media failed to provide the public the information when it was most needed.

In recognition of the crucial role the media could play during disasters, Agustin said PAGASA has created a group of weathermen and journalists who will help improve the public warning system and make possible changes in the technical terms used by the weather bureau.

Risk assessment

Some reporters risked their lives to deliver the news and to help the victims they encountered during the typhoon’s onslaught. Atom Araullo of ABS-CBN News reported live from Tacloban on November 8 for the network’s morning show Umagang Kay Ganda and described how Yolanda devastated the area. The video showed Araullo braving the strong winds to give the audience an idea of the storm’s magnitude.

Araullo’s report was also aired on TV Patrol. After the broadcast, ABS-CBNnews.com wrote a story on how Araullo’s “daring” coverage made it on Twitter’s list of trending topics.

CMFR has pointed out before that “Crisis coverage must be devoid of posturing, playing the hero and other kinds of grandstanding on the part of the media.” Araullo did provide information that would otherwise have not been available. But his reporting could have given viewers a false sense of the strength of the typhoon because he showed himself braving its winds on the streets of Tacloban.

Reports on TV Patrol showed how Araullo helped residents “cross deep floods to reach the stairs of a building” in Tacloban and how Failon helped in carrying dead bodies and consoling sobbing victims of the typhoon. These reports were put the reporters in good light. But their actual report could have been more meaningful if given the context of the critical need for immediate rescue and relief operations.

Checking the facts

There were incidents of “massive looting” of malls, fast food chains, and ATMs (Automatic Teller Machine). On November 9, media reports said there was “no presence” of police or military forces to control the “looters.”

Another report said “wala pong sinanto ang mga taga-Tacloban. Mismong mga pulis ay biktima ng kalamidad kaya hindi na ho natin inaasahan na makapagbantay ang mga pulis (Taclobanons showed no mercy. We can’t expect the police to function at the moment because they are also victims of the calamity).” (ANC)

On November 12, inmates from a provincial jail in Leyte reportedly escaped after breaking down a jail wall. Nearly two weeks after the incident, several prisoners returned and said they only escaped because they wanted to “check on or help their loved ones.” (“Inmates escape jail in typhoon-hit Tacloban” ; “PROMISE KEPT | Tacloban prisoners return to jail after tending to families“)

There were also reports of firefights between security forces and armed men but the authorities dismissed these as false. On November 13, a report by Noli de Castro showed residents of Tacloban City running away in panic following rumors of looting and armed bandits. A woman said: “Many are dead. There are armed communist rebels. Many are dead over there.” Others said there were prisoners who had escaped and that there was “killing everywhere.”

When asked if they saw anything or if they were being shot at, the local said: “No. Not yet. They haven’t reached us. They haven’t reached our village.”

There were also unconfirmed reports of rape in the city. In an interview, a woman told de Castro: “Dito sa amin, halo-halo na ang mga tao, ‘yung mga bahay namin pinapasok, nire-rape ‘yung mga babae. Doon sa may Christina (village) marami na (There are many people here. They enter our houses and rape the women. There are many incidents there in Christina.).”

In a separate report, a resident of Tacloban said: “It’s the criminals who escaped from the prison. They’re raping the women. Tacloban is a dead city.” (GMA News Online)

These reports were distinguished by the absence of any attempt to check the veracity of so-called eyewitness accounts, but were nevertheless aired, contributing further to the panic that was already spreading in Tacloban and other devastated areas. And yet it is during disasters and similar public emergencies when the media need to be especially careful about spreading rumors by rigorously checking the facts. There may have been incidents, but to rely only on what people were saying could have blown up the reality of the danger and criminality and may have pushed people to leave Tacloban even if they had nowhere to go.