Home | To bottom

The BULKED FACTOR

By Ponciano Samson
Brgy. Gibraltar, Baguio City

The May 9, 2005 program of the BIG FACTOR, sponsored by the BIG FM, which tackled the issue of the Bulk Water Project entered into by the Baguio Water District and the Benguet Corporation is a wake-up call for the constituents of Baguio, the non-government sector, and the journalists in the city. It has showed the best of Baguio and alas, its worst.

It showed that Baguio people are willing and can tackle a very controversial issue such as the Bulk Water project. But it also showed how people can be narrow-minded and as selfish as they can be.

I was born in Baguio, my folks have stayed here since time immemorial. My grandfathers have worked for the mines and the local bureaucracy. I was educated here and have established my own family in a place I have loved all my life. Just like any other people in the community I can only dream of a better Baguio in the light of the fast deterioration of its environmental (and moral?) values. One of the best of these dreams, I must have thought, is water running through our homes’ age-old pipes.

Nothing can describe the water crisis in the city. It simply stares at everyone, everyday, every hour and at every place we are in. Just as problematic as I am in fixing the rusty pipeline of our kitchen sink that day, the basic question on who is supposed to provide us with one of the most basic social services seems to have been drawn down the drain – May 9, 2005, BIG FACTOR simply missed the points and who is to blame for this? This is a worse scenario – more desperate than the most desperate amongst us who simply wants water in their household.

What do we really want? Water! This is a desired conclusion.

Is the Bulk Water Project the answer to our clamor? This is a real question.

Why are there oppositions to this project? This is a constant. We simply cannot get away with oppositions. And mind everybody here, skepticism begets evolution – without the unending questions of humanity, all would have been stuck into the oblivion of the middle ages. There would have been no renaissance, no enlightenment for humanity.

But despite the opposing views, all sectors must be able to participate to reach a desired conclusion. The social burden in ensuring this, though, rests on the government, the non-government sector and on this particular incident, the media. As I saw it (heard it rather), the non-government sector (pro-consumers) were the only ones who played their part. Where were the others?

The government (LGU) and the BWD are yet to field a credible speaker for the public. The constituents of Baguio are clamoring to hear them in public forums and radio programs. As an electorate, apart from being a consumer, I expect my city council and my mayor to speak for me – about their visions of a future Baguio. But then, are we not we asking for an expert to explain the issue for us? Why not hear it from an engineer? The past mayor was an engineer. Maybe he has something better to say on this issue rather than indulge himself in libel suits over things he himself had created in the first place.

(Un)Fortunately, an engineer, a former director of the BWD was in the program to “grace” the occasion and I was just personally thankful he didn’t stay there for more than his 6-year tenure. His statements were below par his credentials, his words were so desperate short of saying the Baguio constituents have no other choice but to embrace a questionable project. I was expecting an expert extracting all the juices of his/her education at the most to provide us with as many alternatives as possible. I was just so sorry for him he didn’t make much of himself during his 6-year directorship – and I am just wondering right now, could have I been part of installing other directors of his kind?

The May 9 Big Factor program was reduced to a cockpit arena – thanks to our “we-know-everything-you’re-saying-(and-everything-you-are-about-to-say)” anchors. Even my 8 year-old son commented, “dad, bakit pati yung bad words binasa niya?” I presume he was referring to BULL#$&*. Am I just glad my son has no idea on what “sinalbag” means. And yes, listen closely and hear it well, those (bad) words were/are coming out (sorry, read rather by) from a single horse’s mouth – who could be that horse?

What was pretty obvious (and most disturbing as well) is that the anchor/s would not want their guest (sorry for the term, I know, she wasn’t treated as a guest – this is just for the benefit of the doubt) to finish a single point! It was worse than a cockpit arena, I must have told myself, it was a drinking session!

A friend said, we have a situation here, either 1) the anchors really don’t know a bit about the issue so they are just as confused as the general public, 2) they are also consumers and they just want to involve themselves in this issue, 3) they already have their own biases/positions at that and 4) all of the above.

I said, the fourth scenario is the most likely. On item 1, one anchor really don’t know about a bit over the issue – yes, and its conspicuous since he just reads text messages most of the time. This is one nonsense newsman – a journalist who don’t read and research? Why not, we have engineers who are quite not.

On item 2, on this one, I must agree with my friend. Journalists are also parents and breadwinners in their families. They are warm, live human being subject to the intricacies of a consumer and they are just as concerned over the issue. But then they should decide first which among their many roles they want to play in that anchor room. They were expected to be journalists, a little bit of being a parent or breadwinner, and why not, an engineer, but mainly a journalist.

Besides this is not a way to make a living. Journalists intrigue the mind of the readers/listeners, creatively opening angles of an issue, helping the common tao learn more and make a stand and create public opinion. And this can only be done by a clear news story – a story that will make the reader/listener want more rather than nothing else.

On item 3, on this I really hope my friend is wrong. Otherwise, the public cannot hold on to a credible, ethical journalism. In the light of rising atrocities against journalists, their work ethics should not be put into compromise. Above all else, the interest of the reader/listeners should prevail. While it is true that journalists are likewise consumers and may have stands/positions on their own, they must be able to put these interests aside in favor of the general public’s – that is to know the truth. For this particular newsman, I think the only position/s he remembers is last night’s.

Or, if they can’t inhibit their passion for their stands and biases, they can always give the spot light to one of their colleagues to facilitate the discussion over the issue. One of them was in all honesty trying to facilitate the discussion, reflective of his good writing skills I believe, but he was really dominated by a horse – I suggest a deep thought of career plans for this journalist.

For their guest speaker, it was an admirable task indeed to be in that program. Your cause is not lost. I am one of the listeners that day who vowed to return and listen to the original favorites – lakay Tinong and BOMBO Radyo, and Joe Taruc (the old monotonous and boring programs…but informative, imposing at times, but nonetheless they have the essentials of true journalism, of one true-blue Baguio folk – respectable, dignified).

For the patrons of the BF team, no pun intended. Patronize them as you must but we always have a choice not to if we are fed up with the BULL$#%@’s and the sinalbag! We always have a choice for better, clearer, and unbiased information and news making – and it’s not just a choice, it is our inherent right as readers, listeners, viewers.

And yes here’s my own answer to the favorite question that day: WHAT’S YOUR ALTERNATIVE?

The Bulk Water Project is workable – only if the Benguet Corporation (not the anchorman) can answer the issues raised by Pro-Consumers point-by-point. The findings that the raw water is contaminated is a big deal, not just a side dish. Provide the people with the water product and not just papers we don’t understand, and let a credible evaluation run through your investment. The BC cannot blame the people for criticisms it is earning. These are just by-products (waste products?) of the almost a century of plunder to the resources of Benguet – see, it has grown rich but it practically left the people of Itogon and their land with nothing. Now, can BC possibly provide us with contaminated water if awarded with the Bulk Water? Isn’t this a moral question? Can it possibly set aside profit over quality service to humanity? Here’s my two cents.

Secondly, the BWD and the LGU must be representatives of the people and not of the businesses – why award a project in haste? And worse, one that is questionable? It’s absurd to buy a problematic product only to spend more for its ill-effects.

If this fails, it’s unfair to ask the consumers the same question. We have paid the BWD religiously for water that never reach us, our taxes are paid on time and here they are banging our heads and bleeding us dry with more taxes (eVAT), fare hikes, oil increases, the PPA, among others. Unfortunately, it is not the domain of the consumers to look for alternatives on this matter. But don’t blame us if we ask for quality products, for clean quality water, for a balanced and quality radio program – it is our inherent right as consumers. In analogy, a surgeon would not ask a patient on how to go about his own operation. Let those people who ought to be doing their work do their job, but please, not that engineer on the program. #

Home | Back to top