Minding the business of drinking water quality

In a world where trust is an increasingly scarce and valuable asset, individuals and institutions struggle to foster trust among their diverse audiences.

Individuals who recognise the pivotal role of communications in shaping and altering public opinion have taken advantage of technological advancements and the widespread use of the Internet and social media. They have strategically utilised these platforms to disseminate misinformation for political and financial gain. 

The shift away from traditional media started several years ago and accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic at an alarming rate. It is extremely difficult to determine what is fact, what is half-truth and what are outright lies.

With the sophisticated operating systems in smartphones, people can “make their own news” if they are dissatisfied or are fundamentally opposed to what is being dispensed to them through the gatekeepers at legacy media houses.

At a 2022 roundtable discussion with groups of journalists, published by the Reuters Institute and the University of Oxford, there was worry that digital platforms were at least partly to blame for declining levels of trust in news in many places around the world.

They were also of the view that the platforms were undermining news audiences’ connections with the media houses’ brands, “even as they often saw digital media intermediaries as essential to reaching segments of the public least likely to tune in through legacy modes such as print or broadcast”.

In just two years since the publication of this report, artificial intelligence has been added to the mix and a new president has been installed in the United States who has built his firewall following pushing “alternative facts”.

In the meantime, the trust gap between the public and those who strive to cover news in as objective a manner as possible is widening. In the breach, however, are those who pander to emotion, prejudices and political bias to gain massive following and influence.

As a result of digital media’s impact, legacy news organisations have reallocated resources from comprehensive news production to creating bite-sized content for an audience that seems less inclined to engage with lengthy, well-researched articles.

The media ecosystem in Barbados too has not been immune to the challenges presented by social media and the Internet to the delivery and acceptance of communication from “official” sources.

This has been evidenced by the latest brouhaha over a social media post suggesting that the island’s underground water quality had been compromised and that the World Health Organisation (WHO) has flagged the island’s drinking water.

The post further claimed that tests conducted by the Environmental Protection Department found that local water did not meet water quality standards.

While the Barbados Water Authority has strenuously denied the online post, the idea has already been planted in the minds of people that they ought to question the quality of water they use from the local system.

While it appears evident that the WHO has not issued any warning about Barbados’ drinking water and its quality, some truths cannot be ignored. 

The island underwent a rezoning exercise that allowed physical development in areas that hitherto were barred from such development, and if permission was granted, it was given under strict guidelines. This was done not simply to hinder development but to protect the island’s underground water system.

According to one website, “Barbados faces severe water quality challenges, stemming from pollution, ageing infrastructure and over-exploitation of groundwater. Contaminants include bacterial pathogens, chemical pollutants, heavy metals and saltwater intrusion.”

The website added that a 2020 report by the Caribbean Public Health Agency found that about 15 to 20 per cent of water samples taken from certain areas of Barbados showed E.coli contamination.

The BWA and government have placed their reputations on the line that Barbados’ water is safe for human consumption. However, along with that pledge must come policy and consistent monitoring.

There is no national policy or regulation for the recycling and collection of dangerous items with the potential to harm the island’s water quality. These include batteries for cars, cellular phones, and electronic equipment. With the push towards electric cars, where is the accompanying policy on the dangerous lithium batteries? What about the sale and use of dangerous pesticides by hardware stores, supermarkets and corner shops? Who is monitoring their sale, use and disposal?

Has the island invested in more resources, including equipment and trained personnel, to ensure that Barbadians’ consumer practices are not contributing to the water quality issues?