The Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill of October 2009 caused an international outcry and sparked intense debate in the local and international media. Particularly contentious was its proposal to impose the death penalty for acts of 'aggravated homosexuality'. Through a quantitative content analysis of 176 items from two main daily newspapers, the government-owned New Vision and the privately-owned Daily Monitor, over the period October 2009-June 2010, combined with qualitative interviews with human rights defenders in Uganda, this study explores attempts made by local human rights advocates to influence the media's coverage of the Bill and the extent to which these attempts were successful. The study finds that while there are significant differences between the frequency of reporting on the Bill in the two newspapers, both papers devoted little editorial space to the public health and human rights concerns put forward by local human rights organizations. Despite Uganda's recent and often lauded history of openly addressing HIV/AIDS, human right organizations' attempts to highlight the Bill's potentially adverse effects on the country's ability to tackle the epidemic effectively were only partially successful and, interestingly, awarded much less attention than the potential human rights implications of the proposed change in legislation.

In 2009, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was introduced to the Ugandan parliament for consideration. This article analyses how the domestic press, most notably the privately owned, substantially changed the narratives around the Bill during the first eight months after it had been introduced to the general public. The study argues that although a traditional content analysis reveals changes in media’s attention, media narratives, it does not tell us much about the intricate interplay behind those emerging narratives. The article thus argues for a need to supplement content analysis with a broader analysis of the socio-political context, including transnational anti-gay and human rights activism, international politics on gender and sexuality, as well as aid dependence for understanding changing media narratives on a domestic social policy option.

The article critically discusses the events arising from the finalization of the Namibian National HIV/AIDS Policy of 2007. A series of consultative meetings throughout Namibia produced a progressive draft policy that recognized individuals engaged in same-sex sexual relationships and emphasized the distinct vulnerabilities of the group. However, despite solid epidemiological support and stakeholders' endorsement of inclusion, the key section dealing with same-sex relations never made it into print. By using document analyses, interviews and media content analysis, the article concludes that state-sanctioned discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) individuals, outlined in existing Namibian criminal laws, also resulted in a denial of their rights to health in the new HIV/AIDS policy. Moreover, the study found that the state-sanctioned discrimination is reproduced in the state-owned print media, and that LGBT individuals are dependent on the independent media for visibility. The implications of the media discourses are discussed using an agenda setting perspective.

The Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill of October 2009 caused an international outcry and sparked intense debate in the local media. This article explores to what degree a discriminatory social environment manifests itself in the Ugandan print media and discusses the potential implications for media's coverage of contentious policy options such as the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. A content analysis of 115 items from two daily newspapers (the government-owned New Vision and the privately owned the Daily Monitor, between October and December 2009) indicates the existence of two separate house styles; this is in spite of the fact that both newspapers reproduce the surrounding society's homophobia, albeit with different frequency. Unlike the New Vision, the Daily Monitor includes coverage on homophobia and discrimination, as well as provides space for criticism of the Bill. By acknowledging discrimination and its negative impact, the newspaper de-legitimizes homophobia and problematizes the proposed Anti-homosexuality Bill for their readers.