A barrel of water a barrel of laughs. How the media mocks a resource that should command respect

Sometimes I wonder what this water has done to the media, that in every way they try to discourage their audience from treating it with respect. On the one hand, they write – without water there is no life – which is hardly revealing. On the other, every fact related to water, every recipe, is – to put the subject lightly – presented in a distorted mirror.

And as we know, the mirror reflects the opposite. Combined with cliched titles, this has the effect – hopefully unconsidered – but a poor one when it comes to forming an attitude of respect for water: that from the water supply and that from the sky. We’re withering, but what the hell – as long as it’s dripping from the tap, there’s nothing to worry about.

This article would not have been written if several media flashes of absurdity had not coincided. One presidential candidate thundered about a rain tax, in France it was banned to water gardens with rainwater, and some portals reported fines of 10,000 zlotys for draining rainwater.

And at this point, thanks are due to Water World – for trying to straighten out one of these media misrepresentations and reminding us what a rain tax actually is.

With rain as a demon

Headlines have their rights. They are supposed to attract, hold the eye, provoke clicks. But do they have to kill trust in the process? An example from May: Rainwater. For this there can be up to a 10 thousand zloty fine – thundered one of the widely read portals. It sounded threatening, and the article was about illegal connections to sewers in urban areas, not a barrel under the gutter.

Yes – dilution of wastewater is a real problem. Treatment systems are not designed for such quality. But what hasn’t been added is that the effects of these creative discharges go back to us – the residents – and not metaphorically, but in the form of higher bills from the water and sewer utilities, because someone has to pay for breakdowns. The effect in the form of thousands of clicks was. Understanding of the subject – not necessarily.

Things got even more interesting when portals began reporting that the French government had banned rainwater watering of gardens. One headline sounded dramatic: Rainwater under surveillance. In France, watering your garden can end in a fine . Click. Because maybe – in the face of the drought – the government of the Fifth Republic has decided to punish its citizens for backyard retention.

The air went out of me quickly. It turned out that the ban applies to exceptional situations – for example, the use of rainwater coming from surfaces containing asbestos or heavy metals. But as I continue to read about the impediments to rainwater management, a light comes on: this can’t be true.

So I reach out to the source – French legislation. And what do I read? Neither anything new, nor a legislative revolution I found there. Just a clarification of existing regulations – it is not allowed to water during a declared drought. It is not allowed to connect rainwater to the water supply. The tank must be labeled, because someone could mistake the contents for drinking water. So much.

The French media commented on the whole situation with some fatigue: Entre engouement et confusion, or between madness and confusion. Yes, also there emotions can win out over facts. A fine of 135 euros? Yes, but only if you break specific public health regulations. Retention as such is not only allowed, but even promoted. And sensationalism? Well, this one has managed to do its job.

Well, and we’re back in our own backyard. The topic of the rain tax has been revived with the election season, and since this one will be in the headlines for a while yet, it’s hardly surprising that rain has made it to the placard. Sometimes I wonder who first combined these two words: tax and rain. Who came up with the idea of naming the financial tool for countering concretization in such a way as to resemble a kind of punitive price tag for precipitation. Semantics of the highest order.

And yet, it can be done differently: retention destruction fee or: concrete tax. Doesn’t that sound more accurate? And – more importantly – closer to the truth.

I won’t repeat in detail what Water World has written about, but it’s worth remembering one thing: this fee was conceived not to punish someone, but to promote those who keep water from flowing away.

So regardless of which side of the political spectrum we sit on, the water service charge is neither on the left nor on the right. She is for water. By the way, I wonder which political option will spell rain when that water really runs out.

Systemic rebound

Trust, as we know, is a scarce commodity. Especially when the world is drowning in headlines. The media have their logic. They have to grab, hold, make one read – if only for three seconds before one scrolls on. In such logic, it’s less about the point, more about the purpose, which often drifts away from the substantive. It’s supposed to be sharp, short and with a wow effect, even if something falls apart along the way. Such as, for example, the meaning.

In a world where information has become a product, form has begun to win out over content. Complex topics and phenomena, such as climate change, drought, environmental fees or retention, become mere backdrops for a compelling narrative. If you can tell a story about how the state wants to punish a citizen for water from the sky, why explain how a combined sewer system works?

The result? At best: misunderstanding, at worst: resistance.

Research by Rhodes University’s Rosa Khanyi shows that media portrayals of climate change as an ongoing disaster lead to immobility instead of mobilization. People don’t want to get involved in something that, according to the message, is unstoppable anyway. The paradox is that the more dramatic the descriptions, the less willingness to act. And if we add a layer of irony and mental shortcuts, we get something like media fast food: satiating clicks, but devoid of value.

In the world of water management, this pattern has repeated itself for years, like a refrain. Daniel Goodwin’s team analyzed how Britons reacted to the idea of water reuse. The conclusions? The key was not the topic, but the way it was presented. When it talked about conservation, people cringed. When about drought resilience – less so. When the word safety came up – support grew.

Similarly, in Manuel Teodoro’s experiment. When asked about accepting higher water bills, Americans responded depending on the language of the message. For improved quality and safety – yes. For reducing pollution – not necessarily anymore. Because the taste of water and the consequences in the form of diseases is something we feel. Pollution? That’s an abstraction.

What is the implication of this? That it is not another tax that is the problem, but the way we talk about it. If the media portrays small retention systems as puddles for fat millions, then let’s not be surprised that instead of a conversation about the country’s hydrological resilience, we have memes and laughter.

So the thing is not that the media or commentators should stop being critical, but that sometimes reflection should come to stop discouraging the subject of water. And before someone publishes a text about the barrel penalty, it is worthwhile for him to ask himself where the shortcut leads. Because the shortcut, as we know, can sometimes be the longest.

MAIN PHOTO: Mayer Tawfik/Unsplash

In the article, I used:

1. Khanya, R. . (2024). Influence of Media Framing on Public Perception of Climate Change. Journal of Communication, 5(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.47941/jcomm.1972
2. Nkhoma PR, Alsharif K, Ananga E, Eduful M, Acheampong M. Recycled water reuse: what factors affect public acceptance? Environmental Conservation. 2021;48(4):278-286. doi:10.1017/S037689292100031X
3. Teodoro, M. P. (2022). Issue framing and public willingness to pay water and sewer rate increases. AWWA Water Science, e1275. https://doi.org/10.1002/aws2.1275