Mail & Guardian (Johannesburg) - November 24, 2004

The reason is because the "don't read" message is redundant for the majority of your peers. The mere sight of the word Aids in a headline is sufficient turn-off. Even the political controversies, driving most Aids coverage, have become passe.

Sadly, not even next week's news peg of World Aids Day will make much difference. The occasion will simply mean an increase in unread Aids stories.

Except, of course, in the much vaunted, super-circulating, Daily Sun tabloid which won't even worry about the matter. The people who run that particular rag will ignore the topic, just as they usually do.

Despite having the name and appearance of being a newspaper, they're not in the business of informing people (unless there's sponsorship money to be made out of it). And certainly, they are not in the bad news business.

More serious papers in South Africa don't avoid HIV-Aids stories to the same extent. But they too know very well that readers run away from this depressing content. Falling circulation sales figures on days with front-page Aids stories reflect this unambiguously.

The response: editors accept, sometimes reluctantly, that there's reader resistance. The problem is that they don't seem to be putting much effort in trying to change things. It pretty easy to follow the Sun. It is tough to find more creative ways to communicate a critical story in a really effective way.

The challenge is to find relevant information about HIV-Aids developments and then present all this in a way that people do not perceive as "clutter" to be avoided.

In advertising speak, "clutter" is when a media consumer encounters more unwanted than sought-after content. It can be experienced, for example, as unwelcome disruption like ad breaks in the flow of broadcasting. The character and magnitude of broadcast clutter can lead people to tune out or change channels.

In the print media, clutter can cause readers to skip stories, pages, supplements and even entire publications. Online, it's a key driver of mouse-clicks.

The point is that effective communication requires a content connection with an audience. In short, information has to strike a chord if people are to give it decent attention. And, as difficult as it is with HIV-Aids information, this has to be sought.

Even then, getting people's attention is only a first step. Exposure to HIV-Aids content does not guarantee that recipients actually understand the information provided. Statistics about HIV-prevalence rates, as an obvious example, do not translate automatically into meaningful and memorable knowledge.

In turn, though some media content may succeed in promoting understanding, this is still far from affecting people's attitudes. To read stories about HIV-testing does not necessarily reduce one's deep fears about going for a test.

Finally, taken together, the combined impact on information, knowledge and attitudes still does not automatically amount to actual action, such as whether a person will actually go for a HIV-test (to use the example above).

The complexity of all this creates a conundrum for those who want to see not only compelling content about HIV-Aids in the media, but also the kind of content that makes a material difference.

Millions of rands of publicity around HIV-Aids in South African media have resulted in both paid adverts and plain editorial. The consequence? We know the brands of key agencies -- Lovelife and Khomanani. What we -- and they -- don't know is what all this publishing, along with its broadcast counterparts, really adds up to.

Worldwide, it's common to find that mass communication about health matters may raise public awareness (though not always), but the practical impact on behaviour change is much more limited.

Yet there are at least two key areas where media content can make a difference:

It can generate indirect changes. Reportage on Aids orphans may well not increase community care amongst readers. But if the reports contribute to policy change that then extends child support grants, presto -- the social norm may well change.

As per the well-worn aphorism, media may not tell us what to think, but it can tell us what to think about. Keeping HIV-Aids on the agenda of public discourse is certainly a viable enterprise.

It is also a vital precondition for more ambitious impact. If content doesn't catch and hold attention in the first place, the potential for media to help change anyone's understanding, attitude and behaviour does not even come into play.

South Africans did not sit back under apartheid, so there's no reason why media players today can't make more of an effort to make impact in an area so important to the society. And this impact needs to extend across information, attitude and practice around HIV-Aids.This is one case where Sun-shine journalism will not help disinfect a society. Instead, what's needed is sustained creative effort to communicate a mission-critical matter to disaffected audiences. Send your suggestions [to the Daily Mail & Guardian].

041124
MG041105

Always watch for outdated information. This article first appeared in 2004. This material is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between you and your doctor.

AEGiS presents published material, reprinted with permission and neither endorses nor opposes any material. All information contained on this website, including information relating to health conditions, products, and treatments, is for informational purposes only. It is often presented in summary or aggregate form. It is not meant to be a substitute for the advice provided by your own physician or other medical professionals. Always discuss treatment options with a doctor who specializes in treating HIV.

Copyright ©1980, 2004. AEGiS. All materials appearing on AEGiS are protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under U.S. copyright and other laws and are the property of AEGiS, or the party credited as the provider of the content. .