The press needs to be a lot more skeptical of MERALCO’s explanations; because electricity isn’t like other things you buy. You can’t just “opt out” of it the way you’d switch coffee brands or cancel Netflix. When a power company adds charges, adjustments, pass-through costs, and regulatory fees, those decisions hit real people: families trying to make ends meet, workers, small business owners, and folks already drowning in rising prices. That means every breakdown of a bill is a public-interest story, not just a company explaining itself.
So it’s not enough for news reports to keep saying the charges are “legal,” “approved by regulators,” or “transparent.” Legal doesn’t automatically mean fair. A charge can follow all the rules and still be an unfair burden on consumers. A fee can get a regulatory stamp of approval and still deserve tough questions. When reporters just repeat MERALCO’s bill breakdown without pushing back on the logic behind it, they risk turning news coverage into a glorified script—neat, tidy, helpful to the company, but not nearly enough for the people actually paying the bill.
We need to ask harder questions, more often. Why do so many costs get passed straight to consumers? Who actually benefits from these arrangements? How much of the monthly bill comes from long-term contracts, fuel price swings, taxes, system losses, and other charges that ordinary households can’t control? Are regulators just checking boxes to confirm the charges follow the rules, or are they truly protecting consumers from a system that seems designed to protect utility profits? These aren’t fringe concerns. They’re basic questions any public-facing press should be asking when a private company provides an essential service under government regulation.
When journalists simply parrot MERALCO’s explanations, the danger is that it normalizes the burden. The public gets treated as if bill shock is just a technical, unavoidable fact of life: generation charge here, pass-through there, some regulatory approval in between. But behind those terms are real consequences. People skip meals, delay paying other bills, turn off the AC even when the heat is dangerous, or just take another monthly hit because the system has taught them there’s nothing to question. Journalism shouldn’t help make that suffering feel normal.
A more responsible press would still share MERALCO’s side—but it wouldn’t stop there. It would fact-check the company’s claims against independent experts, consumer advocates, past regulatory rulings, contract details, and real household impact. It would explain not just what the charges are, but why the public keeps paying them, and whether the whole setup actually serves the public good. In a country where electricity is expensive, wages are tight, and utilities hold enormous power, the press shouldn’t act as an echo chamber for the company sending out the bills. It should act as a watchdog for the people forced to pay them.