This article is by the new POLIS Silverstone Scholar Marco Scalvini.
The media play the important role of informing the public about what it means to live with HIV today. But journalists need to report about HIV with a more accurate language.
For example, despite the fact that AIDS and HIV are two of the world’s most recognized acronyms, journalists still tend to confuse the terms. HIV is a virus detected by a blood test. AIDS is the late stage of HIV infection, when a person’s immune system is damaged severely. Thus, HIV may result in AIDS, but having HIV does not mean a person has AIDS.
This distinction is very important for those living with HIV, because they need to be reassured about the good chances of slowing disease progression and extending life. In fact, medical treatment can reduce HIV infection in many cases to a survivable chronic condition, analogous to diabetes. This, in turn, helps to slow or stop the progression of HIV disease and prevent the destruction of the immune system by AIDS.
How the media cover HIV and AIDS issues
On 24 November, I was shocked to read in the New York Times: “33 million people infected with the AIDS virus are on antiretroviral drugs.”
There is no “AIDS virus”. Moreover, no one can be “infected” with AIDS, because it is not an infectious agent.
The virus associated with AIDS is called the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, or HIV, and it was first isolated in 1983. As a consequence, I tried to determine on the Factiva database how common this mistake is, and I have discovered that the New York Times wrote “AIDS virus” 22 times in the last 12 months and 458 times in the last 10 years.
The situation is slightly different in the UK. For example, The Guardian has showed an increasing sensibility to this issue. Though it wrote “AIDS Virus” 21 times in 2008, in the last 12 months the mistake has been repeated only 11 times — but often in a quote. This means that the error is very common not only among journalists.
How many times the New York Times and the Guardian have repeated the term AIDS “Virus” in the last ten years:
Another very important question relates to the use of terms such as “AIDS victims” or “AIDS sufferers”, labels that imply the individuals are powerless, with no control over their lives. Unfortunately, journalists do not respect these considerations despite the fact that it can be seen as reasonable common sense.
The New York Times, for example, has reported either AIDS “sufferer” or “victims” 119 times in the last ten years. The Guardian has almost doubled the hits: 225.
\
How many times the New York Times has repeated the term AIDS “Victims” or “Sufferers” in the last ten years:
How many times the Guardian has repeated the term AIDS “Victims” or “Sufferers” in the last ten years:
Finding the right words
There is increased consensus about the appropriate terminology when reporting on HIV, and it is important to know what terms to avoid. For example, UNAIDS has published a Terminology Guide – also known as its ‘Editors’ Notes For Authors:
One good suggestion is to avoid the construction “HIV/AIDS” because they are not synonymous; “HIV and AIDS” is preferable.
Another important suggestion based on the substantial difference between AIDS (disease) and HIV (virus) is to avoid terms that are extremely misleading: “AIDS test,” “transmitting AIDS.” One should write “AIDS diagnosis” because AIDS is a medical diagnosis made by a doctor based on specific criteria.
Since the HIV acronym already contains the word virus, “virus” in the phrase “HIV virus” is redundant. Just “HIV” is enough.
Another suggestion is to avoid words such as “transmitting” and “infected by” HIV. The appropriate phrase is “acquiring HIV”.
Finally, instead of labelling people as “victims” or “sufferers”, the suggestion is to use “people living with HIV” (PLHIV), because this reflects the fact that an infected person may continue to live well and be productive for many years.
Avoiding stigma
As language shapes beliefs and may influence behaviours, journalists and media operators should recognize that appropriate language has the power to strengthen the response to HIV and AIDS. The wrong wording can only increase discrimination against people who have tested positive for HIV. Moreover, the stigma can discourage people at risk from accessing care, including testing for HIV.
After nearly 30 years of the epidemic, there is still a need for media training and sensitization in order to have more balanced and accurate reporting on HIV and AIDS.
This article is by the new POLIS Silverstone Scholar Marco Scalvini
Hi,
Good piece – I have done a lot of work in this area. I used to work for the National AIDS Trust – you might be interested in these training resources we produced on this exact issue–
http://www.nat.org.uk/Information-and-Resources/Media-reporting.aspx
We also did a lot (they still do) to take cases to the PCC when appropriate. Generally we found a lack of knowledge among some reporters but willingness by most to learn and correct reporting. The Sun in particular has done a lot of good work to educate journalists and make striking improvements in recent years. That came from working with the managing editor.
It is a complicated issue though, and it is not just journalists lack of knowledge but where the journalists get there information from. There is a lot of misreporting (especially in local papers) when HIV is mentioned inappropriately in court cases or by police (i.e. lots of headlines are about police officers fear infection after being spat at).
I think there is also a deeper issue here. There is a tendency, particularly when talking about HIV in the UK, to be reluctant to talk about the most affected groups (gay men and black African men and women). I was often told by producers they would not interview a gay man and only want to interview women/children. I have written before about the unfair hierarchy of innocence in reporting on HIV and there are many examples of it. Look at the coverage from yesterday and I bet you find far more stories about women and children that other at-risk groups, in among lots of calls to end stigma. It also affects where funding is directed.
There are many layers to the stigma and misunderstanding surrounding HIV and the media definitely contributes to it, but could also be a tool to change it.
Kat
Hi Kat,
Thanks for the information. Maybe we should have a chat on this topic. Charlie posed a very interesting question: “the decline in mistakes was because the number of HIV/AIDS stories declined or standards improved” ?
my hypothesis is that there is a general decline of AIDS stories. On the other hand, the NAT paper you mentioned shows also an increasing sensibility towards the issue. Definitely, a lot of work has to be done for implementing these guidelines not only in the UK.
So far I have worked on HIV and antiretroviral advertising, which is another interesting area to investigate, here HIV is not s no longer described in terms of the absence of health or presence of illness in order to sell anti-AIDS medications.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a923040534~db=all~jumptype=rss