When Dirty Rivers Become a Public Message
On social media, there is no shortage of information about the waste problem. We know that rubbish can clog waterways, pollute rivers, worsen flooding, and disrupt health. This information repeatedly appears in news reports, government campaigns, and school materials. However, knowing about the problem does not always mean feeling compelled to act.
It is within this gap between knowledge and action that the river clean-up campaign carried out by the Pandawara Group becomes noteworthy. Through videos on social media, this group shows the condition of rivers, waterways, and public areas filled with rubbish. They then go down directly to clean them together with residents and volunteers. This activity demonstrates that social media is not always synonymous with entertainment or image-building. Social media can also become a public communication space that mobilises public attention and participation.
The success of the Pandawara Group lies not only in the visuals of dirty rivers or the large number of viewers. When viewed through Aristotle’s theory of rhetoric, their campaign works because it combines three elements of persuasion: ethos, pathos, and logos.
Credibility Built through Action
Ethos, or credibility, is the first strength of the Pandawara Group’s campaign. They gain trust not merely because they have an audience, but because they demonstrate real action. They do not just invite the public to keep the environment clean from behind a screen; they also enter the rivers, lift rubbish, and document the process. In public communication, such action is important. An environmental message becomes more convincing when the speaker shows that they also practise the values they voice.
This kind of credibility should serve as a lesson for many parties. Quite a few public campaigns stop at slogans, ceremonial uploads, or appeals that feel distant from people’s lives. As a result, the public easily feels that the message is merely a formality. The Pandawara Group instead builds trust through consistency between message and action. They show that environmental concern is not just discourse, but exhausting work that requires collective involvement.
Emotion That Must Be Channelled into Action
The second element is pathos, the ability to arouse the audience’s emotions. Visuals of rubbish piles in rivers can evoke feelings of sadness, anger, concern, and even shame. This emotion is important because environmental problems often feel abstract when conveyed only through figures or appeals. When the public sees a river covered in rubbish directly, the issue becomes closer and more real.
However, the use of emotion also needs to be critiqued. Visuals of extremely dirty rivers are indeed effective at attracting attention, but environmental campaigns must not stop at momentary pity or anger. If the public only watches, gives a like, and then returns to the habit of littering, then virality does not produce change. Pathos must be followed by clear calls to action: reducing single-use waste, sorting rubbish from home, not throwing rubbish into rivers, and helping to maintain public facilities in one’s own environment.
From Viral Content to Shared Responsibility
The third element is logos, or logical argument. A river clean-up campaign becomes strong when it not only displays dirty conditions but also explains the cause-and-effect relationship. Rubbish thrown into waterways can accumulate, obstruct flow, pollute the environment, and ultimately impact the surrounding community. This logic is simple but often ignored because people see rubbish as a problem that disappears after it leaves the house.
This is where the role of public communication becomes larger than merely creating busy content. Environmental messages must help the public understand that waste is not solely an individual problem. The issue is linked to citizen behaviour, waste collection systems, facility availability, local government policies, and the responsibility of businesses. The Pandawara Group has succeeded in opening public attention, but long-term change still requires broader cooperation.
In my view, the greatest strength of the Pandawara Group’s campaign is its ability to turn an environmental issue that often feels distant into something personal. They make the public see that rivers are not rubbish bins and that cleanliness is not only the task of cleaners or the government. However, the success of a campaign should not be measured only by the number of viewers, reposts, or positive comments. A more important measure is whether the public truly changes its behaviour after seeing the message.
Therefore, river clean-up campaigns need to become an entry point, not an end point. Content creators can build attention; citizens can build habits; the government can strengthen facilities and rule enforcement; while schools and universities can shape environmental literacy. When all parties move, the public message does not stop as viral content.
The Pandawara Group shows that effective rhetoric is not always delivered through long speeches. Sometimes, the strongest rhetoric comes through hands lifting rubbish from a river, visuals that stir concern, and a simple appeal not to add to the same problem. However, that message only truly becomes meaningful if the public is willing to turn attention into action.