I plan to research the media discourses surrounding the portrayal and characterization of HIV victims to help my reader understand how the media’s definition of the current HIV victim influences who does or does not receive treatment or preventative care. Specifically, I would like to understand how the media discourses may have contributed to the negligence in HIV treatment and prevention methods for women living in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).
In previous posts, I discussed how young women in SSA are increasingly more susceptible to HIV infection than any other population in SSA.[1] I discussed several determinants that place young women at risk for HIV. However, I have not discussed how the media discourses may have possibly contributed to the lack of treatment and preventative care for young women in SSA.
I found three separate New York Times articles discussing the development of HIV treatment and the progression of the disease’s outbreak. The first was titled “Rare Cancer Seen in 41 Homosexuals” and was published on July 3, 1981. The second was titled, “20+, HIV+” and was published on April 17, 1994. The third and final article I will discuss was titled “IDS, The Worsening Epidemic” and was published on December 5, 1999.
Each data source re-conceptualizes what researchers have learned about the disease. This means they largely discuss who is being impacted by HIV the most and how it should be treated, or who should be worried about infection. For example, Lawrence Altman’s piece was the first article published about HIV. However, HIV had not yet been named, and was believed to be a rare cancer exclusive to homosexual men.[2] The author defines the victims of the disease to sexually promiscuous gay men, who experiment with multiple types of drugs.[3] He also offers a tidbit of advice to readers, saying that there was “no apparent danger to nonhomosexuals”.[4] The identity of an HIV victim is clearly defined, and anyone who does not fit this bill should not be worried. Similarly, due to the fact that researchers at the time believed HIV to be cancer, they were unsure how it was spread, and did not think that it spread at all (from person to person), as cancer is not an infectious disease.
The second article published in 1994, titled, “20+, HIV+” emphasizes that HIV’s victims are not just gay men who are sexually promiscuous and experiment with drugs. Instead, HIV’s victims are anyone from “young, bright talents to spoiled shoplifters on government assistance”.[5] Most importantly, he emphasizes that both of those categories of people are equally susceptible to HIV infection. In this piece, HIV’s victims are still defined by America’s borders. The author chooses to focus on the HIV epidemic at home rather than abroad.
My third article was published in 1999 and was titled, “AIDS, The Worsening Epidemic”. This piece was published 5 years after Beachy’s, and essentially explains that the scope of HIV expands well beyond America’s borders. The article emphasizes that wealthy nations may be better off at fighting the HIV epidemic, and should share their wealth to African nations. He argues that “the developed world needs to provide more leadership and resources to attack an epidemic that is overwhelming the world’s poorest societies”.[6] Interestingly, the author shifts their scope to the African continent, instead of focusing domestically,as previous journalists had before him. In this instance, HIV’s victims are “Africans”. The continent was grouped together, not distinguishing region. However, it did emphasize that HIV was killig far more across the Atlantic, than it was at home. This piece was one of several that marked a shift in thinking around HIV infection and treatment.
All three articles mark a transitional thinking towards today’s current thought, that HIV victims largely impact lower income women in SSA. Each text defines a victim drastically differently, and largely impacted who would receive treatment in that climate.
[1] Daniel T Halperin and Helen Epstein, “The Role of Multiple Concurrent Partnerships and Lack of Male Circumcision : Implications for AIDS Prevention,” The Southern African Journal of HIV Medicine, no. MArCH (2007): 19–25.
[2] Lawrence Altman, “Rare Cancer Seen in 41 Homosexuals,” New York Times, n.d.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Stephen Beachy, “20+, HIV+,” New York Times, n.d.
[6] “AIDS, the Worsening Epidemic,” New York Times, n.d.
Altman, Lawrence. “Rare Cancer Seen in 41 Homosexuals.” New York Times, n.d.
Beachy, Stephen. “20+, HIV+.” New York Times, n.d.
Halperin, Daniel T, and Helen Epstein. “The Role of Multiple Concurrent Partnerships and Lack of Male Circumcision : Implications for AIDS Prevention.” The Southern African Journal of HIV Medicine, no. MArCH (2007): 19–25.
“AIDS, the Worsening Epidemic.” New York Times, n.d.
Lauren,
It’s clear you have strongly developed your topic through an interpretivist methodology! The three concrete articles you present seem to well inform your investigation into the media discourse of HIV. One question I do have revolves around your media sources. Is if there is any way you can perhaps find articles directly from the SSA region you are focusing on? To avoid language barriers, I know for example the official language of Nigeria is English and South African news articles are often written is English as well. If you analyzed the media discourse from the region in question your project will take a different course, but a more unique one at that. Another element you could look into is how past and present media actually discuss cases of negligence in preventative treatment for women in SSA. I look forward to the progression of your research project!
Lauren — these primary sources give you some good material for conceptualizing your project in this methodology. Thinking about different discourses on/about victims or victimhood is a good starting point, though a bit more could also be done to identify exactly who/what is being constructed in a certain way in the texts that you have analyzed so far. Make sure to keep the focus on understanding how/why these meanings and identities are being constructed. In your problem statement you write that you plan “…to help my reader understand how the media’s definition of the current HIV victim influences who does or does not receive treatment or preventative care” — but that really sounds like a neopositivist cause-effect puzzle/question and not one centered on meaning. Remember that the interpretivist methodology focuses on how discourses — meanings, symbols, identities — are created and reproduced. Who/what is being given meaning or “brought into being” through the discourses? (Just as lone mothers are constructed as, or brought into being as, immoral individuals in the discourses that Carabine analyzes). If victims are the object of the discourses, how are victims constructed or represented? (For example, Carabine might have written her problem statement as: “I am researching social policy and lone mothers in 1830s Britain because I want to find out why lone mothers were constructed as immoral individuals in order to help my reader understand why lone mothers were stigmatized, isolated, and even institutionalized in the 1800s (and beyond).” Notice how the middle part focuses precisely on the discourses/meanings that she has identified in the primary sources and that she proposes to analyze?). Make sure to keep this in mind as you continue your reading and research!