Portrayal of Aids in the Media

People, the public in general, must be better educated about the spread of AIDS. How can this be done most effectively? In the home? On the street? In the classroom? None of the above. Clearly, the best answer is through the mass media. The home can be prejudiced or unwilling to venture into such sensitive areas. The street, while clearly a more open atmosphere for discussion, is (more often than not) uneducated. And while the classroom may be educated and (generally) not prejudiced, it is not far reaching, and thus limited in its effectiveness. Whereas, the mass media has the power to reach millions upon millions of people at a single time, with educated specialists, and without embarrassment. Therefore, if the media has this power is it not their duty to exercise it? And it can be argued that in fact the media does rise to this challenge. The problem, however, does not lie in what the media is trying to say about AIDS, but rather in the manner in which it is being said. Simply, while the AIDS virus is beginning to receive national attention through major cinema releases, made for TV movies, and even one-hour dramas; perhaps the messages being sent are not completely effective. What is meant by this statement? AIDS is still being portrayed as a "gay plague," when, in fact, heterosexual women and new born babies are among the fastest growing populations to contract the virus. It is this wrongful portrayal that I wish to address. Though there may be some general statements cited, my study concerns three specific examples: the one-hour drama (since canceled) Life Goes On, the made for TV movie (based on the Randy Shilts book) And the Band Played On, and the major motion picture Philadelphia. The contention: while the surface message these media events present is an admirable attempt at AIDS education, the underlying messages packaged therein could be (are) detrimental to that cause. In effect, these media events are talking from both sides of their mouth. And in doing so, they are saying, "AIDS is a terrible killer, and our attention must be called to it, (but only if you are gay)." It is this selective ignorance that has caused the needless deaths of thousands of people.

It is important before continuing, to define the difference between HIV and AIDS. They are not the same thing. "Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is a specific group of diseases or conditions which are indicative of severe immunosuppression related to infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)." (CDC Report, 1994) What does that mean? HIV is the cause of AIDS. The function of the human immunodeficiency virus is the depletion anti-viral combatants in the blood supply. It is after these anti-viral agents are depleted that opportunistic diseases attack the body. These are often rare diseases that would never survive in a healthy human body. The following statistics are based on AIDS cases in the United States not HIV diagnosis.

The statistics are harrowing. According to the latest Center for Disease Control (CDC) HIV/AIDS Surveillance Reports, the fastest growing population of AIDS victims, in the United States, is women. The average percentage increase has been calculated at 13.42%. The following groupings have been labeled, by the CDC, as the predominant risk categories for the contraction of AIDS (in women): IV drug use, hemophilia, heterosexual contact, and blood transfusions. The fastest growing of these risk categories being heterosexual contact at 14.99%. The second largest percentage increase is IV drug use at 11.82%. (For further analysis, see appendix 1, graph 1).

The second fastest growing population of AIDS victims, in the United States, is men. The overall percentage increase for men being 11.60%. While the fact that men are continuing to contract this disease at an equally alarming rate to that of women, when the numbers are broken down, an important fact emerges. The number of men who contracted AIDS through homosexual contact is not the largest population. Rather, men engaging in heterosexual contact have increased by 15.27%. The second fastest growing population in the United States is IV drug users at 11.12%. And homosexual contact is in third position at rate of 8.56%. (For further analysis, see appendix 1, graph 2.)

Children, (ages less than thirteen years old), are the third fastest growing population at an overall rate of 8.82%. The largest population of pediatric AIDS cases is derived from children with HIV positive mothers, at 8.99%. The second largest population being blood transfusions at 5.46% (For further analysis, see appendix 1, graph 3). While children are third in ranking of growing populations, there is a frightening variable in the overall growth of this population. There is a 31.17% growth rate in cases whose origin is unknown. "Excludes 77 children under 13 years of age whose risk is not identified. An additional 269 children who were initially without risk information have been reclassified after investigation." (CDC report, 1994) Meaning, these unidentified cases will be reclassified in the forth coming HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report in January of 1995. Early evidence indicates the number of cases based on HIV positive mothers is expected to increase dramatically. If this is the case, and more prenatal AIDS cases develop, does this not indicate a two fold growth in heterosexual contact?

Why is any of this information relevant to the portrayal of AIDS in the mass media? Based on the statistics displayed in the appendix of this paper and the overall statistics found the CDC's HIV/AIDS Surveillance Reports, clearly the media should pay more attention to AIDS and how it can be contracted. The old school thought that AIDS is exclusively a gay disease must be reassessed. It is quite likely that these attitudes have caused hundreds if not thousands of the HIV and AIDS cases in the United States. Is it the responsibility of the mass media to educate the public with accurate facts about HIV, AIDS and how one can contract the condition? The answer seems to be a resounding Yes. Has the media risen to this responsibility? The answer, based on this study, almost. Yes it is true that the media has finally presented AIDS to the public, but the problem is that the portrayal of the disease in not completely accurate.

Coverage of the AIDS epidemic dramatically illustrates how the media are failing their readers, viewers, and listeners just when these citizens need an accurate, knowledgeable and informative media the most... It isn't that the media haven't looked at these questions. Most have covered AIDS repeatedly and, belatedly, have run pieces on seemingly every angle of the disease. But, after publishing or broadcasting such stories, almost all skirt the issue. (Saltzman, page 31)

In