While we’re on the topic of making / not making assumptions… One of the biggest challenges (as well as biggest opportunities) that any health journalist can have, is to identify and respond to health “myths” or “rumours” circulating in their community.
Practically speaking, “myth” is the opposite of “scientific fact”. This is because a scientific fact is something that has been proven, through well-designed research and/or experimentation – whereas a myth is a widely held but false idea or belief.
Between those two opposites, you also have rumours – which are circulating stories, reports, or accounts that are unverified, or of uncertain or doubtful truth.
Often, when communities are faced with deadly diseases – particularly diseases that are “new” or lesser known – they scramble to find answers to their questions, and seek for information that either confirms or lessens their fears about the disease. However, when people are not able to immediately access reliable, trustworthy (to them) information to answer all their questions, they often are left with no better option than to rely on myths or rumours they might hear – particularly if those myths or rumours can help them try to ‘make sense’ of what is happening.
As you likely know by now, there are many myths that have circulated about HIV – such as, ‘HIV is transmitted through mosquito bites’ or ‘HIV was manufactured in a laboratory’. For some more examples of common myths related to HIV, you can visit https://www.aids.org.za/useful-information/facts-and-myths or https://alllife.co.za/hiv/hiv-facts/modern-myths-about-hiv/.
So, as journalists, the question is: What should we do about myths and rumours?
Generally speaking, there are two main schools of thought about how to journalistically deal with health myths:
School of Thought 1 = Direct myth-busting. Actively track myths and debunk them one-by-one through stories, interviews or panel discussions that explain why myth A, B and C are incorrect.
School of Thought 2 = Never mention the actual myth. Rather just focus on a good spread of believable and relatable accurate health stories.
📚 Want to learn more by delving further into this topic? Here are some links for additional reading:
- https://medium.com/local-voices-global-change/combatting-rumors-about-ebola-sms-done-right-da1da1b222e8
- https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/obsonline/myth-busting-can-impair-rather-than-correct-consumers-health-knowledge-study-suggests.html
- https://theconversation.com/the-media-fuels-vaccination-myths-by-trying-to-correct-them-38084
- https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/12/vaccine-myth-busting-can-backfire/383700/
So, which of the above ‘School of Thought’ strategies is better?
Unfortunately, there is no clear-cut or “one size fits all” answer. Myths may be more or less severe, and more or less dangerous (as a number of the readings above suggest). Also, different contexts may require different solutions, at different times. Meaning that it is up to you to determine, as a health or science journalist, which strategy is best for the specific scenario and/or context you are covering.
If you ever find yourself in a challenging situation, you can start by at least trying to understand why the myths are there in the first place: Are they fueled by deep fear? The wish to explain? The desire to belong? The fact that the scientific FACTS are too ghastly to bear?
By listening to our audiences, and listening to affected communities to determine why myths exist, we can better strategize or frame our journalistic stories, and present them in a way that tries to respond to the root of the issue. For example, if the emotion behind a myth is fear, we can produce media stories that aim to address those fears directly (rather than “just provide facts”). Whereas, if the emotion behind a myth is apathy, we might try ways to address apathy in our stories – by putting human faces to issues, and encouraging audiences to care or take specific actions.