The challenge of ethical reporting The media has a responsibility to promote a human rights approach to editorial coverage that gives a voice to women and men, people living with HIV and all interest groups, and challenges stereotypes around HIV and AIDS and its gender dimensions. This is what ethical and diverse reporting means. As opinion shapers, the media has tremendous influence in society. People rely on the news and information presented in the media, and what becomes newsworthy often forms part of the public agenda. The media may not entirely change public behaviour, but through sustained reporting of the pandemic, it can create the necessary impact in terms of awareness and behavioural change. It can play a critical role in reducing stigma and discrimination, and create a greater understanding of the wide range of socio-economic and gender factors that fuel the spread of the virus. The lack of enthusiasm and ownership from the public in the fight against the pandemic can be blamed partly on the media’s inconsistent and superficial coverage that gives the impression that the problem is foreign and ‘out there’. In order to redress this, the media needs to change its attitude on the coverage of HIV and AIDS and engage more with people living with HIV and AIDS. It needs to shift from its dependence on government and NGO pronouncements and make an effort to give the statistics a human face. Through this kind of interaction, perhaps society will take the impact of the pandemic more seriously. Why the media must take action There is an urgent need for the media to deal with the pandemic both in-house and externally. While coverage is very important, there is also a need to ensure that media workers are able to deal with HIV and AIDS in their own lives first. Internally, it is essential for media houses to have policies on HIV and AIDS and gender that will help to create a conducive working environment for employees. The media cannot report positively on the pandemic nor give a voice to those living with HIV if journalists themselves have never been tested for the virus and are ignorant of their own status. In-house policies will assist media workers to be proactive and bring about more openness and support. The researcher conducting an audit of existing policies in media houses for the MAP HIV and AIDS and Gender Baseline Study noted that some staff members were reluctant to provide such information because they considered it to be private. The media cannot claim impartiality, neutrality nor remain aloof in the reporting of something as fundamental as HIV and AIDS and gender. Everyone, including media workers, is affected in some way. There is still a lot of stigma attached to the disease and without any in-house support it is very difficult for media workers to be open about their status. At a MISA conference in Tanzania in 2004, which addressed the media’s coverage of HIV and AIDS in the region, two journalists living with HIV spoke of how their colleagues failed to give them the necessary support due to their own ignorance and the stigma attached to the disease. Three years later little has changed, as only a handful of media workers are open about their status. The intolerance shown by the media to their own colleagues seems to be the same attitude that is being fuelled through the coverage of HIV and AIDS as evidenced by the studies. It was therefore hardly surprising to learn from the MAP audit that less than 10 per cent of media houses in the SADC region have policies in place to address HIV and AIDS and gender. The creation of a gender-sensitive HIV and AIDS Annual Report 2007 47