MxMIndia

Tag: Poonam Pandey

  • Lame & Lazy: News Media’s Poonam Pandey Coverage

    Lame & Lazy: News Media’s Poonam Pandey Coverage

    Shailesh KapoorLast 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.

  • Bad P for the Big C

    Bad P for the Big C

    Ranjona BanerjiNow that the excitement over Poonam Pandey’s supposed death has died down, is it too late to discuss the implications of her stunt? Reactions have been largely negative, not unexpectedly. To claim to have died of cervical cancer only to resurrect yourself the next day because you wanted to raise awareness about cervical cancer is both extreme and trivial. That this death followed the announcement of a government scheme and the launch of an indigenously-manufactured HPV vaccine by an Indian company, and knowing that Pandey likes a bit of publicity for herself, rung a few alarm bells, but evidently not enough.

    In that, it’s hard to dismiss a formal death announcement as a publicity prank, and yet that is what it was.

    A columnist on this website, Vikas Mehta, tried yesterday to negotiate through all the reactions – shock, laughter, outrage – and came to two conclusions: that younger people did not see the event as angrily as most people, and that any publicity is good publicity. And shock tactics often work in the world of advertising.

    The last is a well-known axiom in the world of publicity. And Poonam Pandey is skilled in the art of staying in the news for doing as little as possible. The Kardashians you might say are masters of the craft. To become famous for being mildly famous and then use that fame to build zillions of careers, not least the family’s own. Pandey is not quite in that category… but she tries poor thing.

    Is awareness about cervical cancer important? Definitely.

    Is awareness about a vaccine that can prevent cervical cancer important? Without the shadow of a doubt.

    Do you have to pretend to die to create this awareness?

    Well.

    It is not clear whether Pandey jumped on to this cervical cancer bandwagon herself, or whether she was hired to do so. Were either the Union Government or the Serum Institute of India part of this? No clarity on that yet, although even I would be shocked if they had paid for this.

    The agency which organised the death issued a statement after the event, which included this explanation:

    “There was no change in people’s curiosity regarding Cervical Cancer when our Honourable Finance Minister mentioned it no less than a few days ago during the Union Budget.

    “The act by Poonam has now resulted in making Cervical Cancer and its related terms the most searched topic (s) on Google.”

    From a publicity point of view then Pandey and her team feel they have won. She’s got her two minutes and then will move on to a new demo of her untested skills.

    Some media watchers have blamed journalists for carrying the news of her death without checking, given Pandey’s history. Others make the excuse that since the death announcement came from Pandey’s own team, how could journalists have further confirmed this death?

    No clear answer there.

    But this is what will happen. For one, cancer patients and their families, and those who have lost loved ones to cancer, will feel the pain of someone trying to benefit from their suffering. This feeling will not go away just because she did this to raise awareness. All of us cancer patients, victims, survivors, whatever we call ourselves, know the shock within when you get the diagnosis of the Big C, of mortality, of fatality, of imminent death. Yes, life is a sexually transmitted terminal disease. But we all feel we should get the chance to complete our three score years and ten, and hopefully then some. Pandey’s stunt played on the worst of our fears and attempted to profit from them. And then, trivialised the journeys of millions, not all of whom survive their cancer diagnosis.

    Secondly, it is doctors who need maximum awareness about this vaccine, especially first response doctors. Oncologists enter the picture later in the journey. How many gynaecologists have started jumping about saying “O yaay, Poonam Pandey pretended to die and now my patients can get a vaccine”?

    The change will come from the medical community, from camps conducted, from taking healthcare to slums and remote areas, to targeting women at Primary Health Centres, those who get left behind in the race for health.

    Regardless of online fame, cancer and death are real. Rarely fun. And sometimes, bad publicity is just a bad idea.

    Ranjona Banerji is a senior journalist and commentator. She writes on MxMIndia on Tuesdays and Fridays. Her views here are personal. 

  • Poonam Pandey & Cervical Cancer: A Case of Generation Gap?

    Poonam Pandey & Cervical Cancer: A Case of Generation Gap?

    With apologies to none at all

    Vikas MehtaBy Vikas Mehta

    Things moved fast last week. On Thursday, February 1, Union finance minister, Nirmala Sitharaman, announced in her interim budget speech that the centre is proposing a plan to encourage use of vaccine for preventing cervical cancer amongst girls 9-14 years of age. Cervical cancer is the second-most common cancer in India and almost a fourth of global cervical cancer deaths happen in India. No details of the government scheme were forthcoming but the initiative was lauded and welcomed.

    The very next day, news came in through her media team that controversial and newsmaker model Poonam Pandey had died at the age of 32 of cervical cancer. For me, it sounded too much of a coincidence but social media was trending with the news and there was much shock reaction too.

    Then a day later, Ms Pandey appeared to say that the news of her death due to cervical cancer was part of a campaign to raise awareness of Cervical cancer.

    And yesterday was World Cancer Day.

    All hell broke loose after Ms Pandey’s disclosure. My social media was full of angry friends and acquaintances. Influencer marketing had hit a new low, said someone. Another mentioned Ms Pandey’s past and said that she is not new to controversies. Her act may be for a noble cause but given her past it could cast a shadow on her intent, opinioned another. Someone mentioned that this marketing stunt had crossed all limits. The editor of this portal lamented the death of journalistic good practices as breaking news was more important than checking it out first.

    A digital guru tweeted (or should I say Xed) a google analytical graph that demonstrated that search for Ms Pandey had gone up substantially whereas cervical cancer search was languishing.

    In the meantime, I had posted about this marketing deed on some groups which are solely populated by GenZ and the reaction I got was exactly opposite.

    How clever, said one. Don’t know who she exactly is but she seems to be famous and has used her fame well, chipped in another. Fake news is bad but nothing wrong in using fake news for good was another response I received.

    Sensing a generational gap (me, my friends and acquaintances are all over 50) and also a distinct shift in values and ethics, I challenged GenZ with similar comments as listed above by my generation.

    What I am narrating below are not my views but as generated by GenZ.

    • She didn’t die and willingly gave her name to a cause. What’s wrong in that?
    • We see worse fake news which is actually fake. This was not actually fake.
    • I did not know about cervical cancer and when my mother shared this news with me (of a celebrity dying so young), I found much more about it.
    • She did not kill anyone. She did not hurt anyone. She did not cause a loss or a scam. So how does it matter?
    • She may have gained lot of publicity for herself but it has brought cervical cancer in the news too.
    • Ethics and morality evolve with times. I am told a few decades ago it was not right for a boy and a girl to meet alone. Today it is accepted.
    • My parents want me to get high marks in exams. They don’t bother how. If I cheat and get it, it does not matter. The end result matters. Here too the end result is good.
    • What matters is grabbing attention. Nowadays news portals give sensational headlines which are only half true or in some cases not true at all. Or brands send message that my card is waiting despatch when I haven’t even applied for a card. If they can do so to catch attention then what’s wrong in this stunt?
    • Journalists anyways are all sold out and have no spine. So why expect them to chase the truth or research well before publishing a news (hear hear Mr. Editor!).
    • She seems to be old, but she thinks like us. Maybe I will follow her.
    • She should not have done this as it is inauspicious to fake death was a stray comment. But it was latched on to by 2-3 others and attacked. How can one be so old fashioned and traditional was the refrain. Do not believe in such superstitious things. Don’t you wear black?
    • I never knew that a form of cancer can be prevented with a vaccine. At least now I am aware.

    This last point resonated with me. I have a daughter who is now approaching her twenties and neither me nor my wife had ever heard about the dangers of cervical cancer or its vaccination. As I write this, my wife is talking to our doctor to see if she can be vaccinated.

    Now let me add my two bits to this generational gap issue.

    I do confess that initially I too was dismayed at this whole issue. In fact, because it was Ms Pandey and the news was released by her team and not family had seemed quite odd. But I could never suspect that someone will fake one’s own death unless it was for some subterfuge. So, my morality, traditional thinking and values were shaken.

    But when I heard some of the arguments, I realised that there are worse things happening to be upset by this. And it definitely was for something good. Even though data shows that the cause was a distant second to the influencer at least it had been stirred up. A small technicality too. I don’t think Ms Pandey is an influencer. At best she is a celebrity.

    This episode not just highlighted the generation gap but also reinforced a marketing dictum. Your users may be many but identify your target and talk to them. Don’t forget that this initiative was not Ms Pandey’s. It was initiated by the HPV vaccine and they should be lauded for targeting teenagers to get their attention to the dangers of cervical cancer.

    It also tells me how sharply segmented we are by demographics. News portals and social media like Facebook which are more frequented by the older generation have been quick to criticise Ms Pandey. Issues more relevant to this older generation like ethics, morality, tradition, good old days etc matter more and that dictates their writings and rants. It becomes a closed circle where nothing else matters or exists.

    The GenZ is not too troubled by these attributes. They are more open, not affected by past and more result focused. Some of my generation call GenZ instant gratification generation, but I think that’s unfair. They live in the present because they have no history to dwell upon. And with the rapid technology evolution, history becomes historical rapidly.

    Let’s not forget that brands have in the past also used half news or fake news to create sensation and frenzy. As a friend reminded me, Taj Mahal tea ran a PR campaign in the 2000s announcing that Ustad Zakir Hussain, who was the brand endorser, had decided to stop playing tabla. There was lot of frenzy and health speculation until it was revealed that it was a challenge, wherein the Ustad had announced ‘find me a better tea and I will stop playing tabla’.

    Wasn’t this also spreading fake news? Distorted news? So how was that acceptable? For, last I heard that became a case study on how to do good PR. How come Ms Poonam’s case was going to an extreme and falling to a new low? Or her past will shadow the noble deed? Or was it just because Poonam Pandey was used and not a “more respected celebrity”.

    Come to think of it, this campaign (that’s what I will call it from now, not a stunt) was about shock value but maybe it will also fall into the awe category.