Tweet

Tags

hiv terminology, journalism, news media, the sunday times

Related media coverage

• Good intentions overshadowed by errors
• Bad reporting: Revealing the real scourge
• Excellent journalism benefits all in our society
• More on the foreskin furore
• Come out swinging: Following through can drive change

Media Toolkits

• Basic Principles in Covering HIV and AIDS
• Further Reading

“terminiology should convey the correct factual HIV information and reflect the progress made in addressing HIV”

Papers should use “AIDS” carefully

News articles continue to confuse the HIV and AIDS issues by using the wrong terms in the wrong contexts. Besides the fact that this is technically incorrect, HIV terminology should reflect the changing nature of the condition, which has been mediated by interventions.

The headline of an article in yesterday’s edition of The Sunday Times gives us a perfect example of how not to frame an otherwise decent article on HIV.

The article which talks about new research aiming to find out why South African youth are worse affected by HIV than their US counterparts, not only lumps HIV and AIDS together in the now defunct HIV/AIDS combination but the headline also makes the mistake of talking about an ‘AIDS rate.’

While the misleading headline is not quite as bad as papers talking about things like ‘AIDS tests’, which technically do not and cannot exist, it still illustrates an alarming gap in knowledge around HIV as well as a failure to keep up with the shifting terrain of HIV prevention and treatment.

While you could realistically calculate the number of people who are in the most advanced stages of HIV infection (i.e. those who have AIDS) and come out with an AIDS rate, it would not be a very reliable indicator of the current state of the HIV epidemic. This is because AIDS is largely preventable through antiretroviral treatment (ART).

An AIDS rate would also not give an accurate indication of the prevalence or spread of the virus, as 'AIDS rate' relates to the incidence of tanglible illness rather than the basically invisible rate of new HIV infections.

At present, the focus of the 21^st century biomedical response to the epidemic is largely around preventing new HIV infections and preventing existing infections from maturing into AIDS illness.

Where the responses by medical teams and behaviour chanage communication are truly effective, the cases of AIDS should be minimal - even where HIV prevalence is high. This means that the term 'AIDS' (along with the stereotypical images of those stricken by it) are increasigly being religated to the history books.

The HIV terminology used by the news media should not only convey the correct factual HIV information but should also reflect this progress that has been made in addressing HIV and working towards preventing AIDS.

See the latest UNAIDS HIV terminology guidelines in our Further Reading section.