You can’t spell STI without HIV

Kim Johnson

6 September 2011

Anyone putting sexually transmitted infections (STIs) on the agenda deserves more than a pat on the back, but not including HIV in a discussion on STIs could them a slap on the wrist.

Today’s ‘The Verve’ section of The Star features a comprehensive discussion of the various STI nasties that “one in two” South Africans will have tangoed with by the time they turn 25.

Chlamydia, human papillomavirus, syphilis, genital herpes and something called molluscum contagiosum (which sounds like a spell straight out of Harry Potter) all feature in this line-up of suspects.

However the article ‘dismisses’ HIV by printing a subtle disclaimer which states that, “We are not including HIV here as it gets far more coverage than all the other STIs.”

Besides neglecting the biological connections between HIV and other STIs (that you are more likely to get HIV if you have an STI and that STIs make HIV-positive people more infectious) The Star makes assumptions about the nature of HIV coverage that are not entirely correct.

In fact the quality and quantity of HIV reporting in the South African media are in dire need of redress.

Although HIV is arguably the most pressing crisis facing South Africa today with approximately one in 5 living with the virus, mentions of HIV in the news media are few and far between.

Add to this that journalists reporting on the epidemic often struggle to get their facts straight, and you have a combination of issues which; A: tell the reader that HIV is a non-issue and/or, B: report information on the virus which is factually incorrect or does not cover the issue in full.

These kinds of problems in HIV reporting are not only issues of journalistic integrity; the information communicated to readers could influence the safe (or unsafe) sex choices they make in their everyday lives.

blog comments powered by Disqus