|
By Ranjita Biswas Participants at a recent workshop on media coverage of HIV/AIDS acknowledged that it is not always accurate and informative. But journalists also face problems in getting information and in convincing their editors to publish it
Reporting on HIV/AIDS definitely gets greater space today than ever before. The epidemic’s quick spread across the world, its unrelenting pace, its devastating effect on human life and the socioeconomic conditions of a country – and the millions spent by various world bodies to combat the infection – have all contributed to better media coverage. This is true even if one acknowledges the complaints about shrinking spaces for development news, including health, in a consumerism-driven globalised scenario. While this is a good sign, there is also the danger that half-baked reporting, short on accurate information and insensitive to the experiences of people with HIV/AIDS, will affect society’s understanding of the disease. Sometimes it can even hinder awareness campaigns, particularly in less-developed countries and where education levels are low. These cankerous issues as well as genuine problems in reporting were discussed in a workshop on “Media and HIV/AIDS reporting: challenges and directions” during the recent Eighth International Congress on AIDS in Asia and the Pacific (ICAAP) held in Colombo from August 19 to 23, 2007. Jointly organised by the ICAAP media committee and the Thomson Foundation, the workshop focused on topics such as the need for well-informed reporting and how to handle a sensitive issue like HIV/AIDS. Indeed, this is a very important subject, say experts in the field. Experience has shown that the media sometimes unwittingly do more harm than good to awareness efforts. Dr Susan Paxton, executive director, Positive Response, Australia, and advisor to the Asia Pacific Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS, who herself is HIV Positive, shared her experience of media insensitivity. “It took me some time to ‘come out’,” she said, but more than the difficulties she experienced in taking this tentative step, “it was the media’s invasiveness that traumatised me.” HIV-positive for nearly 19 years now, and a public face as she travels around holding workshops for Positive people, Paxton is well-placed to speak on this. On a visit to Taiwan some years back for a speaking engagement, her photograph was splashed in newspapers along with references to her HIV status. “There was even some protest about how a Positive woman could enter the country.” As for the journalists, they hounded her in a way that she felt was going to a courtroom instead of a lecture room. The thrust of the reporting was sensationalism. Today, Paxton says, “When someone comes to interview me I tell him or her, ‘Please don’t refer me as a ‘victim’. I am just a person living with HIV, and life hasn’t ended for me.’” The use of words like ‘victim’ and equating AIDS with HIV are just two of the pitfalls that should be avoided, communications experts in the area say. Sometimes, however, with the best of intentions, journalists from the regional language press have to struggle to find the right expression for words relating to HIV/AIDS. Journalist Huma Khawar from Pakistan pointed out that the lack of appropriate terminology in Urdu translation poses a challenge, something that English language writers do not have to face. Besides, a translated word may sometimes be considered vulgar by the target audience because of cultural specificities. Kumudini Hettiarachchi of The Sunday Times, Sri Lanka, expressed the same view. Writers in the language press in India have also frequently dithered on how to use words such as “intercourse” and “sex” without making them sound too salacious from the readers’ perspective. Savyasaachi Jain, India projects coordinator for Thomson Foundation, reported that in Cambodia, some topics related to the disease are not talked about simply because the appropriate words do not exist in the Khmer language. Even if they did, they would be considered offensive. These are, however, problems that can be ironed out as the disease and infection are not confined to closeted discussions anymore. In fact, some progress in this area is already observed. But the problem of how best to write on HIV/AIDS without harming the interests of the infected and affected, and without confusing readers, is still an area that needs more work. There are practical problems too. Reporters must walk the tightrope walk of deadlines, disinterested editors driven by market diktats who prefer “eyeball catching” news, lack of proper information resources, or even “overwhelmingly scientific” briefings which can be understood only by researchers and doctors in the area. So mistakes do creep in. But, as Jain said, the basic tenets of good reporting – enquiry and cross-checking as well as the ethical principle of reporting while protecting individuals’ privacy -- should be kept in mind while writing on a subject of such dimensions and with such an impact on society. Otherwise, insensitive reporting can sometimes create fear of the disease and, consequently, fear of the people who are infected. This may result in ostracisation and abandonment of people before treatment is made available. This is relevant because, as Jain pointed out, the public gets more information about AIDS from the media than from government booklets. Hence, the media is powerful which gives it an accompanying responsibility: it can “stigmatise or make people more aware.” The presentation of news on AIDS is also important in an age of media saturation. Attention spans are shortening and the young in particular switch off mentally if the news seems dull. People can develop an attitude that “this is not our concern.” Jain feels that the multiple tools of media available today -- radio jockeys, theatre, TV shows, interactive shows and so on -- can and should be roped in to spread awareness about HIV/AIDS. As a guide to informatively and effectively reporting on HIV/AIDS, the EU-India Initiative with the Thomson Foundation has produced a colourful and interesting media manual. Headlined “25 Years of HIV/AIDS” (it was in 1981 that the first published report described a rare pneumonia in five gay men, a condition later identified as characteristic of the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome or AIDS), the manual includes fact files, milestones and simple questions and answers on every aspect of the disease, from how infection occurs to how it is diagnosed and treated. There has been a 60 per cent increase in HIV and AIDS reporting in India, noted Anand Tiwari , advocacy and media consultant, UNAIDS, Delhi, at the workshop. However, Tiwari pointed out, 80 per cent of these reports are event-based and spot reports, covering meetings and celebrity statements. They do not contribute to the general population’s knowledge about the disease. This is exemplified in the media circus during visits to India by Hollywood actor and AIDS activist Richard Gere. If earlier he was mobbed for a few sound bytes, recently Gere got more attention for sweeping Indian actress Shilpa Shetty off her feet in a dramatic gesture. He may have been naïve and unaware of how his impulsive actions would be viewed in a conservative society like India (he apologised afterwards for any offence he might have caused), but for days the media, both print and electronic, went on and on about the episode. In the process people forgot that the event was part of an awareness campaign on AIDS. InfoChange News & Features, September 2007
|
