It’s not new that people have used shock tactics in the past to raise awareness about things. Recently, Poonam Pandey, an Indian model and actress, surprisingly caused controversy on social media when she announced her death and linked it to a fight with cervical cancer. However, the admission that it was all a publicity stunt to increase awareness of the illness has led to an argument about the morality of such acts. Views are widely divided; some praise her for trying to bring attention to a serious health issue, while others criticize the action as being impulsive and attention-grabbing.
Can there be any good Behind it?
Regarding Poonam Pandey’s prank, one viewpoint highlights the possible advantages. Some people have argued that using a celebrity’s platform to draw attention to health issues is not a new strategy. Pandey was able to gain international attention by pretending to be dead, which presented a special chance to share knowledge about cervical cancer. Her supporters argue that the shock value of the stunt could encourage people to learn more about the illness, which would raise awareness and encourage preventative measures.
Furthermore, they believe that celebrities frequently turn to drastic measures to stand out in the noise of social media, where it can be difficult to get the public’s attention due to frequent updates and an abundance of content. In this regard, Pandey’s extreme action can be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to break through the digital noise and spread an important awareness of cervical cancer.
Public Perception
The alleged death stunt of Pandey highlights the fine line that must be drawn between attracting attention and preserving sensitivity. The event forces us to consider the psychological effects of shock tactics at a time when they are frequently used to garner brief attention from the public. How much is this justified? It can be said that there is nothing wrong in using a social media platform, to raise awareness, however, one should be equally responsible and sensitive regarding the feelings of others.
What she wanted to do was the right choice to spread awareness about a terminal illness that had taken lives in the past and can cause severe harm in the present, however, by faking her death she had hurt the emotions of people who are suffering from the disease and go through a turmoil of emotions, physical pain, and financial loss.
Was it Ethical?
On the other hand, critics sharply condemn Poonam Pandey’s alleged suicide stunt, drawing attention to moral dilemmas and describing it as a cheap display of self-promotion. They say that lying about one’s death—even for a good cause—crosses boundaries and plays on people’s emotions. They argue that taking such a controversial approach reduces the gravity of the problem at hand and runs the risk of overpowering the message with the shock value of the stunt.
Critics also draw attention to the possible damage to the reliability of sincere health programs. Using dishonest methods to spread a message raises concerns about the public’s ability to distinguish between real awareness campaigns and publicity stunts in a time of widespread misinformation and sensationalism.
The main issue of the debate is Poonam Pandey’s actions’ ethical implications. Critics believe that if her stunt encourages people to be examined for cervical cancer and saves lives, then it is OK to violate ethical standards. Opponents, on the other hand, emphasize the value of integrity and openness, claiming that the methods by which a message is spread are just as important as the message itself.
Media Sensitivity
Does media have any role to play in it? Should they be responsible?
In today’s time, people have access to anything happening in the world. And one important role to play in this is the role of media. It helps us to be well informed about happenings of the world. But the question is, does the media do ethical reporting of news, or is it just meant for sensationalization and working for high TRPs?
Recently, it can be seen that the media deliberately promotes these kinds of fake news for their benefit without being sensitive to the effect it can have on the general public. While some argue that media organizations must cover topics that impact public health, others fault them for adding to the sensationalization of news and turning significant topics into entertainment value.
All this impacts the perception of the general public. When they learn about these kinds of unethical behaviours, they don’t believe in any news even if it is true. Which ultimately causes people to get affected. So, media houses need to spread authentic news after checking its validity from reliable sources. This not only helps the public to be aware of various issues but also maintains their belief in the media.
Read More: Understanding the Impact of Fake News
In conclusion, Poonam Pandey’s controversial trick has sparked a heated discussion and shown the difficulties associated with utilizing drastic methods to bring attention to important topics. Her actions may have been motivated by a desire to raise awareness of cervical cancer, but it is important to take into account the ethics, possible risks, and public opinion. Ultimately, the conversation makes us rethink what constitutes appropriate activism and advocacy in the era of social media, where it can be harder to distinguish between creating awareness and striving for attention.
Leave feedback about this