THREAD ⚠ :-

THE-NOT-SO-ENTERTAINMENT-INDUSTRY.
One cannot make an omlette without breaking some eggs. The web series or any digital content released time to time is for the purpose of "entertainment" but there are following things that acts an impediment.

The content released becomes a propaganda due to the statements of the artists in public domain. It is not a matter of suppressing Freedom Of Expression by any means but just like a judge who is adviced to never reveal their political biases because it questions their credibility
, the artists should also refrain from commenting on politics or endorsing any hate speech that will force audience to "relate anything to literally anything" resulting in Boycotts. These can also be PR stunts to promote the content but it certainly degrades one's reputation.
The content also influences people's thoughts and perceptions. Movies can control our brains. Artist use their art to shape their viewers, and advance their point of view. To some extent, all art is in the business of manipulating the thoughts and emotions of its audience.
You can google the research about how shows/digital content shapes our views, and is not always limited to "entertainment".

No beating around the bush. I am a Hindu, and it is important to call out hypocrisy of departments.
Hinduism is a very vast religion and has been losing its essence since a long time now. The culture has been fading due to inclination towards the west. It is not about comparing work of fiction meant for entertainment with the Hinduism lived and practiced in real life but about
how this unwanted comparison happens in the subconscious mind of the audience. How many of children or parents you see who even know one percent of Sanatana Dharma? I bet, the number is way less. Hence, the appropriate descriptions of cultures, gods, gurus is important.
The web series or the digital content is a major factor in brainwashing the public and in NORMALIZING THINGS THAT SHOULD NOT BE NORMALIZED. The concerns of the audience should be addressed properly and not "selectively" which gives it a communal angle.
Artists apologizing because of hurting religious sentiments is an albatross around the neck. If the target is to make people aware of how politics work, social issues, or satire to encourage laughter, then there can be a volley of ways to do that.
But targetting and hurting sentiments of a community time and again reveals their HYPOCRISY.

High time that they learn to respect all religions and should be given a cold shoulder if they use a particular religion as a source of entertainment or make a mockery out of it.
The industry should figure out what has gone wrong with the creative writers that they have now become offensive writers.

Wondering how movies in 70s, 80s and 90s are still a big hit without any propaganda, no religious involvement but only clean comedy!!

More from Culture

One of the authors of the Policy Exchange report on academic free speech thinks it is "ridiculous" to expect him to accurately portray an incident at Cardiff University in his study, both in the reporting and in a question put to a student sample.


Here is the incident Kaufmann incorporated into his study, as told by a Cardiff professor who was there. As you can see, the incident involved the university intervening to *uphold* free speech principles:


Here is the first mention of the Greer at Cardiff incident in Kaufmann's report. It refers to the "concrete case" of the "no-platforming of Germaine Greer". Any reasonable reader would assume that refers to an incident of no-platforming instead of its opposite.


Here is the next mention of Greer in the report. The text asks whether the University "should have overruled protestors" and "stepped in...and guaranteed Greer the right to speak". Again the strong implication is that this did not happen and Greer was "no platformed".


The authors could easily have added a footnote at this point explaining what actually happened in Cardiff. They did not.

You May Also Like