19 September 2011

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

22 September 2011

Following our articles on the potential for Agony Aunts to address HIV, yesterday The Star’s ‘Momma’ tackled the HIV aspect of a correspondents unprotected sex story. And while JournAIDS is happy to see Momma using her power as a source of HIV information, there is still a fly in the ointment, or rather the ‘oil’.

A young girl writes to Momma this week, saying that her boyfriend has told her that there is no risk of her falling pregnant if they have unprotected sex because the “oil” in condoms has damaged his kidneys.

However his girlfriend seems to have...more.

22 September 2011

Following on news that world leaders are meeting in New York this week to co-ordinate a response to non-communicable diseases (which do not spread from person to person, or from animal/insect to human), a smattering of articles on the looming threat these conditions pose have appeared in the news media.

Many articles have cited statistics which claim that most of the deaths due to these ‘lifestyle diseases’ are concentrated in developing countries, which up until now have been focused on addressing infectious diseases like, HIV and malaria.

One such article appears in today’s The Star. The article is a vignette documenting the events leading up to the death of...continue reading.

19 September 2011

With the commendable strides in biomedical intervention garnering the bulk of our already scant HIV media coverage, the Sunday Times’ focus on young South Africans’ behaviour this week presented a welcome change of pace.

But those looking forward to a meaningful engagement with issues around sexual behaviour would have been somewhat disappointed.

The article recounts the findings of a recent collaborative study by the University of the Witwatersrand and the University of North Carolina, which attempted to gauge the sexual risk-taking behaviours of young adults (18 to 24).

The study concluded that in spite of youth in the US being more likely to engage in risky sex, young South Africans face a much higher probability of contracting HIV. The researchers argue that even though South African youth are not having as many partners and tend to use condoms more often than their American counterparts, the severity of our epidemic renders their sexual encounters considerably more risky. 

On this basis, one of the recommendations of the study is that a concerted effort be made to convey the risks involved in routine sexual behaviour more clearly.

Yet headlines like “High HIV rate not result of risky sex” suggest that there may be multiple understandings of “risk” at play, ultimately diluting the message the research is conveying.

Risk is typically defined as the potential for an undesirable outcome. In risk, the environment is a critical factor. For example, going for a swim in itself does not necessarily indicate risky behaviour. But going for that same swim in spite of numerous shark warnings... continue reading.

21 September 2011

“Aids virus”, “HIV-AIDS”; The South African media continue to use outmoded, out dated and outright incorrect terms when writing about the HIV epidemic.

Articles in today’s editions of The New Age (TNA) and The Times are the latest to exemplify this trend.

To get straight to the heart of the matter, HIV and AIDS cannot be used interchangeably or lumped together, because they are not the same thing.

HIV is the virus which causes AIDS, a syndrome.

For further information on why using the correct HIV-terminology is important, please see our growing collection of blogs on the subject:

• Papers should use "AIDS" carefully
• Bad reporting: Revealing the real scourge
• The New Age comes to terms with HIV terminology
• Slapdash: Slashes and dashes mar HIV journalism

19 September 2011

It’s the kind of story that elicits gasps, something that is reminiscent of an episode of the Jerry Springer show.

Someone ‘intentionally’ infecting their partner with HIV is probably right up there with most people’s worst nightmare because it represents emotional and bodily betrayal all rolled up in one.

But nevermind the sensationalist, dirty laundry aspect of this story, what this story really brings to light is the ever thorny issue of behavior change in HIV prevention.

The Times and the Sowetan report that a medical doctor has laid a criminal charge against his long-term partner, after she allegedly gave him HIV.

But hold the disbelieving shake of the head and the he-should-have-known-better ‘tsk tsks’.  The doctor’s inability to use his medical knowledge to protect himself really points to our inability as human beings to...read more.