The Press Council of India has issued a new set of media guidelines for reporting on people with HIV and AIDS, in India. The guidelines, devised in association with UNAIDS, lays down certain dos and don’ts for both print and television

“HIV is not synonymous with AIDS, ‘HIV/AIDS’ as a term is no longer considered accurate,” says the Press Council of India (PCI) in its revised guidelines to the media on HIV and AIDS. The guidelines also stipulate that journalists must not disclose the identity of people infected with HIV. Further, no hidden cameras should be used to show people living with HIV, no images of the sick and dying, no graphics of skulls and crossbones, and no using the term “scourge” while reporting on the disease.

The guidelines maintain that HIV cannot be termed a “scourge” and that expressions like “full-blown AIDS”, which are often used to denote the progression of the infection, are misleading and meaningless because there are no degrees of AIDS, as a person either has or does not have AIDS. India is home to 2.5 million HIV-positive patients, including 70,000 children below the age of 14.

The PCI is an autonomous statutory body set up with the objective of preserving freedom of the press as well as keeping a check on the newsgathering and reporting practices of newspapers and agencies in India. It has power even if it is widely seen as not being very effective either in policing or altering journalistic practice in India.

The guidelines, set in 1993, were revised after a writ petition filed by the National Network of Positive People in a juvenile court in Thiruvananthapuram, objecting to visuals shown by the media of two children suffering from the virus, and a subsequent false report on the death of one of them.  

The court then directed the PCI to issue fresh directions to the media.

The Council held meetings with UNAIDS and activists working in the field and came out with revised guidelines. “Uphold confidentiality and obtain informed consent. Journalists should not disclose the identity of the person infected with HIV unless they have specific permission to do so. Whenever possible, they should get written consent,” the guidelines state.

But, it adds, to “minimise damaging repercussions, it would be best to avoid identification even when written consent is obtained. This can be done by changing names and locations in the story”. The don’ts to the print and electronic media include avoiding references to caste, gender or sexual orientation and not reinforcing stereotypes about sexual minorities like lesbians, gays or transgenders. 

It also makes clear that the identity of children affected by HIV must not be revealed and their photographs should not be published. “This includes orphans and children living in orphanages and juvenile homes,” it stresses.

As for images -- in print or on television -- the guidelines say the identity of the individual should not be disclosed. It recommends that television cameras be put behind the person so that only a silhouette is seen. Ideally, the camera should focus on the person’s feet, hands or back of the head and not the face, says the Council.

The media must “ensure their story is objective, factual and sensitive” and should give their stories a human face. “The focus should be on facts. Distortion of facts in any manner to make the story salacious and, therefore, more saleable is unacceptable,” it adds.

According to Akhila Sivadas, who heads a media advocacy group, the “guidelines were essential as the earlier ones were outdated”. “This is the recommended approach. It now depends on the media to translate it into practice. It is still to be worked on,” says Sivadas, who is executive director of the Centre for Advocacy and Research.

Ranjan Dwivedi, technical adviser, UNAIDS, claims that “intensive” consultations were held between activist groups, representatives of HIV and AIDS communities and select journalists from the print and electronic media, and that draft recommendations were “widely circulated electronically” before the new guidelines were finalised.

“We took six weeks to conclude the process,” says Dwivedi. “There was consensus on ensuring responsible and accurate coverage of issues related to HIV and AIDS. Misreporting interferes with confidentiality and comes in the way of voluntary testing and the morale of people. Guidelines must educate about the disease.”

Mayank Agarwal, joint director, information, education and communication, National AIDS Control Organisation, says it sensitised around 1,500 Indian journalists during 2005-07 to the nature of the disease.

However, a day after the guidelines were released many of the country’s leading media organisations claimed they weren’t consulted. Several said they were unaware of the guidelines. H K Dua, editor-in-chief, The Tribune, said: “Guidelines of any kind are statutory in nature and very sensitive. I haven’t seen these guidelines and can therefore not comment on them.”

“We don’t know anything about this. To my knowledge, nothing has been sent to NBA (News Broadcasters Association) members. They should have consulted us,” said Vinay Tewari, executive editor, CNN-IBN, an English news channel.

“I am totally opposed to the idea of any kind of guidelines,” said Sanjay Gupta, editor of Dainik Jagran, the most widely circulated Hindi newspaper in India. “Guidelines always have loopholes and it is not hard to find them. Besides, I feel it should be up to the editor or head of the publication to regulate what should be written and how it should be written.”

“These guidelines are not mandatory. Their implementation is voluntary,” said Mohuya Chaudhuri, senior editor-health, NDTV. Chaudhuri, along with Sanchita Sharma, health editor of The Hindustan Times, were the two journalists from mainstream media outlets who were part of the group that put the guidelines together.

Source: http://www.livemint.com, November 2008
            IANS, November 2008