Last Friday saw the bizarre publicity stunt, whereby Poonam Pandey, along with a media portal (Hauterrfly) and a digital agency (Schbang) staged the news of her death, with cervical cancer being the stated cause. The stunt ended the next day, when Pandey posted a video message on social media.
Rather than creating any significant awareness for cervical cancer, the incident has served as a comment on the state of our news media today. Every single news platform carried the news of her ‘death’, made tribute videos (often like showreels of her pictures from her social media handle), spoke to ‘fans’, and generally behaved very concerned about the whole thing. These videos and articles, still available on social media, are a testimony to the sorry state of affairs in our news business.
Even if one grants the benefit of the doubt to news platforms, that the incident was so bizarre that one wouldn’t expect any ‘foul play’ in it, that benefit of doubt would last an hour or two at best. Principles of sound journalism would suggest follow-up coverage that’s more investigative in nature. Here, a celebrity death was being reported for an entire day, but with no trace of the body or the place of death.
Social media users came up with conspiracy theories that should have been no rocket science for a seasoned investigative journalist, such as Pandey posting very normal pictures on her Instagram just a couple of days earlier. Digital news platforms could have (somewhat) valid budget constraints. But for our leading news channels to report on the story from the desk, taking a text-based Instagram post, from a celebrity known for courting controversy, on face value, is a sign of how low the standards have fallen.
If one were to think of staging a stunt like this, they will simply be deterred by the audacity of the idea. After all, you would expect it to be called out within a few hours, if not minutes. That a celebrity and two companies had the confidence of being able to pull this off is itself a telling statement. It’s like a live social experiment, in which our journalists were the social groups being tested.
Disappointing it may be, but not surprising. If editors who get paid handsome salaries sit in the studios night after night and do armchair politics, staging debates with foregone conclusion, laziness is bound to seep into the culture of popular journalism, especially on the television side. Chasing a story seems to be now the job of the minions, and a desk job can be seen as a promotion!
In any case, the art of interviewing has been long forgotten, and only a few veteran journalists from the 90s (or earlier) are keeping it alive. Political reporting has lacked nuance, and reporting on the economy has lacked domain literacy. And now, celebrity reporting, which one would imagine to be the easiest of them all, also seems sub-standard.
The Poonam Pandey story would be forgotten soon. But the lazy media that reported it is here to stay. And we have little choice but to suffer.