The tweet from journalist Pallavi Ghosh raises critical points about selective outrage in media and public discourse. Ghosh’s statement highlights a growing concern regarding the inconsistency in reactions to issues of press freedom and civil liberties, especially in the context of India. The tweet references the arrest of a young journalist in Hyderabad, who faced legal consequences for her reporting, contrasting it with the vocal responses surrounding another incident involving a comedian, Kunal Kamra. This discussion is particularly relevant for those engaged in media, journalism, and social commentary, as it underscores broader themes of accountability and bias in public reactions.

### The Context of Selective Outrage

In recent years, the landscape of journalism in India has been fraught with challenges. Journalists often find themselves at the crossroads of freedom of expression and governmental pushback, particularly when reporting on sensitive topics. In the case mentioned by Ghosh, the young journalist in Hyderabad was reportedly arrested for her coverage, which points to the precarious position many journalists occupy when they dare to challenge prevailing narratives or expose uncomfortable truths.

Ghosh’s tweet suggests that the silence from certain quarters regarding the arrest of this journalist contrasts sharply with the outrage expressed over Kunal Kamra’s situation. Kamra, known for his provocative comedic style and political commentary, has faced backlash for his views, leading to intense public debate. This disparity in reactions raises questions about why some incidents garner more attention and condemnation than others, particularly when both involve fundamental issues of free speech and the rights of individuals to express dissenting opinions.

### Implications for Journalism and Free Speech

The implications of selective outrage extend beyond individual cases; they reflect broader societal attitudes toward journalism, dissent, and authority. When certain incidents are met with widespread condemnation while others are overlooked, it can create a chilling effect on journalists and content creators. Fear of repercussions can stifle creativity and discourage investigative reporting, leading to a less informed public.

Moreover, the selective outrage phenomenon can lead to a skewed understanding of the challenges faced by different groups within the journalistic community. It may result in the marginalization of voices that are already underrepresented, particularly those who do not have the same platform or visibility as high-profile figures like Kamra. This can create an environment where only certain narratives are amplified, while others remain silent.

### The Role of Social Media

Social media platforms play a crucial role in shaping public discourse and providing a space for diverse voices. However, they can also contribute to the phenomenon of selective outrage. Tweets and posts can quickly go viral, drawing attention to particular incidents while leaving others unnoticed. Ghosh’s tweet itself serves as an example of how social media can be used to call out discrepancies in public reactions. By highlighting the arrest of the young journalist alongside the reaction to Kamra, Ghosh invites her followers to reflect critically on the consistency of their outrage.

Engagement on social media can amplify issues that may not receive adequate attention in traditional media outlets. However, it can also lead to a fragmented public conversation, where certain narratives dominate the discourse while others are sidelined. This underscores the importance of fostering a more inclusive and equitable dialogue around issues of press freedom and civil rights.

### Moving Towards a More Equitable Discourse

To address the issue of selective outrage, it is essential for individuals, media organizations, and society at large to cultivate a more equitable discourse regarding press freedom and civil liberties. This involves acknowledging that all voices matter, regardless of their prominence or the popularity of their opinions. Advocating for consistent responses to issues of censorship and repression, regardless of the individuals involved, is crucial for creating a more just environment for journalists and commentators.

One step towards achieving this is by encouraging media literacy among the public. Understanding the complexities of journalism, the challenges faced by reporters, and the implications of censorship can empower audiences to engage more critically with the content they consume and share. It can also foster a culture of solidarity among journalists, encouraging them to support one another in the face of adversity.

### Conclusion

Pallavi Ghosh’s tweet serves as a poignant reminder of the importance of consistency in our outrage regarding issues of press freedom and free speech. The contrasting reactions to the arrest of a young journalist in Hyderabad and the public discourse surrounding Kunal Kamra highlight a troubling trend of selective outrage that can undermine the principles of justice and equity in media. As digital platforms continue to shape the narrative landscape, it is imperative for individuals and organizations to advocate for a more inclusive and fair discourse that amplifies all voices and holds the powerful accountable. By doing so, we can work towards a society that values and protects the essential freedoms that underpin democracy and informed citizenship.

Btw the same people who kept quiet on a young journo in Hyderabad being arrested over what she reported are now speaking out on kamra – selective outrage isiko kehte hain

— pallavi ghosh (@_pallavighosh) March 24, 2025

Btw the same people who kept quiet on a young journo in Hyderabad being arrested over what she reported are now speaking out on kamra – selective outrage isiko kehte hain

In the age of social media and instant news, it’s fascinating how public reactions can vary dramatically depending on who the person is and what they stand for. Just take a look at this insightful tweet by journalist Pallavi Ghosh. She pointed out a striking contrast in the reactions to two distinct situations: the arrest of a young journalist in Hyderabad and the recent uproar surrounding comedian Kunal Kamra. Ghosh’s words ring true for many who observe the landscape of public outrage and opinion.

The crux of the matter is selective outrage. Ghosh’s tweet encapsulates a sentiment that many of us have felt but may not have articulated. Why do some issues garner a louder response than others? Why are certain voices amplified while others are silenced? This is an invitation to explore the dynamics of public outrage, the power of social media, and the responsibility that comes with it.

Btw the same people who kept quiet on a young journo in Hyderabad being arrested over what she reported

Let’s dive into the case of the young journalist in Hyderabad. She was arrested for her reporting, a situation that should have raised alarm bells across the media and among the public. After all, journalism plays a critical role in a democratic society. Without a free press, how do we hold power accountable? Yet, the response was muted. Why is that?

Sometimes it feels like certain narratives just don’t fit within the popular discourse. Perhaps it’s because the journalist was not a household name, or maybe her story didn’t resonate with the larger audience. Whatever the reason, it’s disheartening to see such a significant issue brushed aside while other matters—like Kunal Kamra’s comedy routines—receive widespread attention.

In a world where information is abundant, you’d think that every infringement on press freedom would provoke outrage. But here we are, witnessing what many are calling selective outrage. This term encapsulates the idea that people often react strongly to certain incidents while ignoring others that may be equally important.

are now speaking out on kamra

On the flip side, we have Kunal Kamra, a comedian known for his sharp wit and often controversial takes on political issues. His routine might ruffle a few feathers, but it also sparks conversations—conversations that many people seem eager to engage in. When Kamra faced backlash for his comments, the public response was swift and loud. People rallied, shared memes, and expressed solidarity with him in droves.

But why this disparity? One possible explanation is the visibility that Kamra has in the public sphere. He’s a familiar face, a name that many recognize. His ability to entertain and provoke thought makes him an accessible figure for many. The outrage that followed his comments was not just about the words he spoke; it was about what those words represented in a broader context.

Kamra’s situation became a flashpoint for discussions on free speech, comedy as a form of protest, and the societal limits of humor. It’s interesting to note how the public often rallies around personalities rather than issues. When a high-profile figure like Kamra is involved, the stakes feel higher, and people seem more willing to voice their opinions.

selective outrage isiko kehte hain

This brings us back to Ghosh’s assertion of “selective outrage.” It’s a powerful phrase that encapsulates the frustration felt by many who see inconsistencies in public responses. There’s a sense that some voices matter more than others, and that can be demoralizing for those who are fighting for justice or recognition.

In a society that claims to value freedom of expression, why do we pick and choose which battles to fight? Selective outrage can lead to a culture where only certain narratives are validated, creating an echo chamber that stifles diverse perspectives. It also raises questions about accountability. Are we, as a society, holding ourselves to the same standards we expect from others?

The implications of this selective outrage are significant. It can lead to a skewed perception of reality, where only the loudest voices are heard, while those of marginalized individuals, like the young journalist in Hyderabad, are drowned out. This imbalance not only affects public discourse but can also have real-world consequences for those whose stories remain untold.

The Role of Social Media in Shaping Outrage

Social media plays a pivotal role in shaping public reactions today. Platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook allow for rapid dissemination of information, but they also create a battleground for opinions. This can lead to a phenomenon known as “outrage culture,” where people quickly latch onto certain stories, often without full context.

In the case of Kamra, social media offered a platform for supporters to voice their opinions and rally around him. Conversely, the case of the young journalist did not gain the same traction, which raises questions about how stories gain visibility in the crowded digital landscape.

What factors influence the virality of certain narratives? Is it the presence of influencers, the nature of the content, or simply the timing of the events? Understanding these dynamics is crucial if we want to address the issue of selective outrage more effectively.

Moving Towards a More Inclusive Discourse

So, what can we do about this? How can we create a culture of outrage that is more inclusive and equitable? First and foremost, it starts with awareness. By recognizing our biases and the reasons behind selective outrage, we can begin to challenge the status quo.

When we see an issue that isn’t getting the attention it deserves, we can amplify those voices. Sharing stories, supporting independent journalism, and engaging in discussions around overlooked narratives can make a difference.

Additionally, we should strive to hold ourselves accountable for the causes we support. Are we championing issues because they align with our beliefs, or are we genuinely advocating for justice? By reflecting on our motivations, we can work towards a more authentic and inclusive discourse.

It’s also essential to support platforms and initiatives that prioritize diverse voices. By seeking out stories from marginalized communities, we can begin to break down the barriers that perpetuate selective outrage.

As Ghosh’s tweet reminds us, the world of public opinion can be fickle and often selective. But by fostering a culture of empathy and inclusivity, we can challenge these trends and create a more equitable space for all voices to be heard.

In the end, we all have a role to play in shaping the narratives that surround us. Let’s make sure that we’re amplifying stories that matter, no matter who is telling them.