This quantitative snapshot suggests there is no clear definitive pattern about the topical coverage. Rather, here are a few key differences between how the Black press and mainstream press covers AIDS. The New York Times covered AIDS testing, current events and IV Drug Use, while IV Drug use was not covered at all by Black publications. Black publications such as Ebony, for example, did a better job of covering AIDS as it pertains to women as did Newsweek.  Jet ended up focusing on men on the “down-low” and bisexual men as they relate to HIV. There is also at least one story that covers men on the “down-low” and bisexual men in both Newsweek and the New York Times. Both Newsweek and the New York Times covered at least one story dealing with gays and HIV. This compares with the Black press which fails to specifically look at gays. It is easier to make generalizations about the New York Times coverage because it has a larger article sample set than the Black publications.

Findings

The purpose of my research is to analyze how Black media reinforces or deviates from mainstream media in their coverage of the AIDS epidemic by examining media coverage of AIDS from 2004 to the present. This study probes the degree of HIV/AIDS coverage over time with respect to various themes. I consider the balance of topics covered, media tone, as well as how these articles are positioned in reporting. I am also interested in the scope and slant of the messages introduced by both Black and mainstream press.

There has been an overall decline in the quality of reporting on AIDS coverage since the 80s, as noted by scholars like Cathy Cohen. During the period I examine, both the Black and mainstream press end up losing site of reporting on issues that matter such as how individuals can protect themselves. The competitive and sensational aspects of reporting mean that we lose focus on how to reduce the number of AIDS cases. Moreover, identity politics can either provide a political foundation for individuals to unite around or be the source of dissolution. In the case of media coverage of AIDS, identity politics prevent comprehensive and objective coverage in some cases: one group gets focused on at the expense of another and there are cases where groups are pitted against each other in coverage.

Black publications portrayed black women as the victims of bisexual men rather than recognizing that anyone who is HIV positive is a victim. There is also a constant scapegoating of gay and bisexual men in the Black press, which in turn creates a sense of us verses them. The Black press in particular just seems to provide a small synopsis of a much larger issue. These articles didn’t spend nearly as much time telling women how to protect themselves or discussing other modes of transmission. Several of the articles covered in the black press don’t really hold women accountable for their sexual behaviors.

This us verses them mentality also pervades the mainstream press examination of gays and HIV. It’s also fair to say that AIDS reporting in the mainstream press was a lot more sensational where homosexuals were concerned. In the few articles it devotes to gays and AIDS, the mainstream press paints a biased image of homosexuals as irresponsible and sex-crazed.

Another key difference between the media groups is the assumptions they make about their audience. The Black press assumes that Blacks know very little about HIV while the mainstream press assumes that groups such as homosexuals know that they are at risk. Yet the mainstream press is clearly more diverse in terms of HIV and AIDS coverage. It seems to touch on groups that Black press seemed to avoid. This includes IV drug users and homosexuals; however, there was very little coverage on Blacks and HIV. The mainstream press doesn’t provide nearly as much background information on AIDS and HIV as does the Black press. In turn, the Black press covers homosexuals and bisexuals only when they pose a risk to heterosexuals.

With the mainstream press, there is a lot of information that is assumed; this is not the case with the Black press, which repeatedly introduces very fundamental information of HIV & AIDS. The mainstream press doesn’t spend a lot of time de-constructing myths about HIV, explaining the difference between HIV & AIDS or trying to get certain groups to realize that they are at risk. This gives the mainstream press some leeway in terms of keeping up with current events. The Black press, on the other hand, tries to get its readers to realize that they are at risk. Finally it seems apparent that the Black press differs most from the mainstream press in their blaming other marginal groups for the spread of HIV. The Black press also examines women’s perspectives very closely while this was not the case with the mainstream press.

One major similarity is that both the Black and mainstream press fail to be inclusive enough. My research reveals that both media groups exclude gays, sex workers and intravenous drug users from effective coverage and being represented in an unbiased way. I noticed from the articles I sampled during this period, for example, that we never really get to hear any colorful narratives on women themselves or gays themselves, which would have been insightful.

Another major similarity is that both Black and mainstream press urge HIV/AIDS testing at home. Both presses agree that it’s imperative to know your HIV status for your own health and well as for the health of your partner. Finally, the majority of articles covered by both Black and mainstream presses were relatively short and there were few investigative reports.

With a disease as deadly as AIDS, we see groups pointing the finger at each other for increasing the spread of this pandemic. There are times when HIV/AIDS coverage seems to be a bit like a rat race as we are inundated with epistemological findings, sensational reporting, statistics, data and information from many media sources. These statistics sometimes conflict with or even contradict each other, and are constantly changing. We also have a variety of groups competing to have their agenda heard or to have their position validated. Identity politics in the context of media treatment of HIV and AIDS mean that we can have extensive coverage on one group and none on another group. One group can be held higher in esteem or socially privileged over another. An example of this is the fact that gay and bisexual men are depicted as being disease carriers while women are depicted as innocent unsuspecting women, as in the case with the Black press. Moreover, each group tends to suggest that they are the most at-risk group.

This document analyzes how AIDS is covered in both Black and mainstream media. This includes a look at not just whether or not groups are covered, but also how they are portrayed. I examine the positive aspects as well as what could have been done differently. The organization of this document follows the particular themes analyzed within the media coverage.