By Karl Ocampo
Dinapigue Mining Corp. (DMC), a subsidiary of Nickel Asia Corp. (NAC), took a disproportionate share of the criticism.
Its proximity to the Sierra Madre mountain range and the storm’s expected path over northern Luzon made it an easy target. Satellite images showing exposed land spread quickly, boosted by influencers who framed these visuals as evidence of environmental destruction.
Engaging amid misinformation
We took this moment to engage. Clarifying misinformation is part of our responsibility, and it helps us refine our messaging while speaking directly to people who may not have the full picture.
What troubled me more was how one local media outlet chose to handle the issue. The outlet published images with captions seemingly designed to provoke anger and implied that DMC had compromised the region’s natural defense against strong typhoons. Not a single member of its editorial team reached out for our side before publishing.
This prompted us to request fair reporting. Only after our letter did the reporter call. At one point, he asked what measures the company was taking in response to a landslide that he claimed happened at our site. I corrected him because no such event occurred within or around our operation. It made me question whether any research had been done at all.
When reporting skips verification
Many companies face this pattern. The dynamic between media and corporate communicators often pushes the latter to appease reporters to avoid negative coverage. I told the reporter plainly that we will never ask any media organization to stop covering us. We only ask for the chance to present our side, which is a basic journalistic standard.
I even invited him to visit the mine site. He did not commit.
It is convenient to blame the mining industry for natural disasters. It is also a narrow view. These events have multiple drivers, and other sectors such as transport, agriculture, and real estate are among the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
Mining companies, in contrast, are required by law to rehabilitate disturbed areas, and NAC has numerous sites that show this commitment in practice.
The case for fair scrutiny
Since our engagement with the media outlet, its coverage has shifted. The tone is more balanced and measured, which we appreciate. The damage, however, is done. The original post remains online and continues to circulate.
Influencers we asked to issue corrections acknowledged the errors, yet also chose not to update their content. That is the nature of a stigmatized industry operating on platforms that reward quick judgment over context.
The reality remains unchanged: mining is a tool for progress and cannot be wished away. It is present in the materials that build our homes, the equipment that grows our food, and the technology that powers our daily lives. I am typing this column on a laptop made possible by mined materials.
Rebuilding trust and truth
Every industry has responsible and irresponsible actors. That is precisely why nuance matters and why the press must approach these topics with rigor. Being a watchdog is a privilege, and so is the use of social media. Both come with the duty to be fair.
As we rebuild after typhoon Tino, I hope we can move past reflexive blame and toward a more grounded conversation about the country’s future.
The public deserves reporting that informs rather than inflames, and industries deserve scrutiny that is firm yet fair.
I call on media practitioners, content creators, and readers alike to demand accuracy, to question easy narratives, and to engage with the full context before passing judgment.
Responsible storytelling is part of nation-building. Let us hold each other to that standard.
Karl Ocampo is a former business journalist for the Philippine Daily Inquirer and now serves as the media and communications manager at Nickel Asia Corp.
