By Anil Merani: Actors, as public figures, are often seen as ‘fair game’ for scrutiny because their visibility invites public opinion, and their actions can influence large audiences. The influence of social media in amplifying this scrutiny cannot be overstated. Posts are dissected for intent, timing, or perceived insensitivity, as seen with Shoaib Ibrahim’s vlog post after the Pahalgam attack. However, targeting an actor unfairly—especially if others post similar content without backlash—raises concerns about bias, particularly when tied to religion or selective outrage.
How wrong it is depends on context:
Unfair Targeting: Singling out Shoaib while ignoring others who posted during the same period, like those promoting films, is hypocritical and suggests prejudice, especially if religion is a factor. This undermines the secular ethos of the TV industry and an actor’s right to free expression.
Public Expectations: Some argue actors should be more cautious due to their influence, especially post-tragedy. Shoaib’s post wasn’t malicious, but its timing was seen as tone-deaf by critics, though he clarified he was unaware of the attack.
Patriotism Policing: Questioning an actor’s patriotism over a social media post, without evidence of intent to harm, is excessive. It’s a subjective overreach that can stifle personal freedom. This underscores the importance of a factual basis for judgment, rather than subjective interpretation.The wrongness lies in disproportionate criticism driven by bias rather than reason. Actors aren’t immune to critique, but fairness demands consistency—either call out everyone or no one. Shoaib’s point about selective targeting holds weight if others escaped similar scrutiny. Without evidence of malice, the backlash seems more about mob sentiment than justified critique. It’s crucial to remember that fairness in criticism is not just a matter of principle, but a necessity for balanced judgment.