A Drama Framed as Social Responsibility
These days, the drama Case 9, airing on Geo TV, appears to take up a highly sensitive and important social issue. Through its narrative, the impression is created that the primary objective of the drama is to raise awareness for rape victims, shake societal conscience, and break the culture of silence. Viewers are repeatedly reminded that speaking out against oppression and standing with the victim is the true moral responsibility of society.
Constructing the Image of a Fearless Journalist
In the drama, Shahzeb Khanzada is portrayed as a journalist who is fearless, principled, and endowed with exceptional moral courage. He is shown resisting pressure from powerful quarters, rejecting financial or political incentives, and standing firmly with truth and justice at all costs.
Sensitivity in the Victim’s Narrative
Particularly in recent episodes, most notably Episode 30, the drama reinforces the idea that he conducts a rape survivor’s interview with extreme caution, empathy, and respect. The woman’s dignity, privacy, and emotional state are placed at the center, presenting an image of ideal, ethical journalism.
A Symbol of Women’s Rights Advocacy
Through this portrayal, Shahzeb Khanzada is projected as a strong advocate for women’s rights. His composed tone, carefully framed questions, and sympathetic demeanor create the image of a model journalist in the minds of viewers.
The Gap Between Fiction and Reality
However, the critical question remains, does this character reflect reality, or is it merely a carefully scripted and camera friendly illusion? When this same persona is examined through the lens of real life journalism, several fundamental contradictions begin to surface.
Journalism Under Invisible Commands
The reality is that much of today’s journalism appears bound by directives, signals, or unspoken commands. Claims of independence, neutrality, and professionalism often collapse instantly, reducing journalists to remote controlled figures rather than free voices of truth.
The Bushra Bibi Iddat Case as a Test
If we consider the Bushra Bibi iddat case, the very journalists who claim moral high ground were seen turning a woman’s private life into public spectacle. There was little sensitivity, no balance, and none of the ethical restraint that is now glorified in televised dramas.
Violation of Core Journalistic Principles
The manner in which deeply personal matters were discussed in that case stood in direct contradiction to the fundamental principles of journalism. Concepts such as privacy, dignity, and respect were pushed aside, while sensationalism took center stage.
One Sided Narratives and Selective Truth
Perhaps the most troubling aspect was the consistent reinforcement of a one sided narrative. The journalist who, in fiction, claims to hear all sides, appeared in reality to be presenting only one version of events.
The Absence of Balance and Fair Hearing
If commitment to principles and tolerance were genuine, both sides should have been heard equally in that case as well. The failure to do so further widened the gap between the on screen character and real world conduct.
Rights or Convenience?
This mindset exposes a deeper truth, the issue is not truly about women’s rights, but about convenience, preference, and pre approved narratives. When a story aligns with the chosen narrative, ethics are loudly championed, when it challenges power structures, principles are quietly abandoned.
Media’s True Responsibility
The true role of media is to question, hold power accountable, and present the complete picture, not to appoint itself as judge and jury. Unfortunately, journalism in our society is increasingly drifting toward opinion, perception, and spectacle instead of investigation, balance, and caution.
Sensationalism in the Name of Advocacy
Using women’s rights as a cover to provoke emotions and chase ratings is becoming a dangerous trend. This not only damages the credibility of journalism but also harms the very women whose issues genuinely deserve empathy and serious attention.
Also Read: From Executive Responsiveness to Citizen Redressal: Reinforcing Democratic Governance in Pakistan
Conditional Respect for Women
When a woman’s dignity is respected only if she fits a particular narrative, and her private life is exposed otherwise, this is not respect, it is exploitation. Dignity cannot be a temporary convenience, it must be a consistent principle.
Fictional Ideals Versus Real Conduct
The ideal characters shown in dramas represent a fictional world where intentions are pure and decisions are always correct. But when the same figures contradict these ideals through real world actions, questioning them becomes not only justified but necessary.
The Illusion of Screen Authority
Audiences must also recognize that everything shown on screen is not reality. Polished dialogue, serious expressions, and dignified tones can sometimes serve as tools to mask deep contradictions and hypocrisy.
The Need for Uniform Ethical Standards
If journalism truly seeks credibility and respect, it must adopt uniform standards for all cases. Loud moral outrage in selective matters and complete silence in others can never define serious journalism.
The True Meaning of Advocating Women’s Rights
Genuine advocacy for women’s rights is one that applies equally to all women, regardless of whether they belong to vulnerable groups or powerful circles. Their dignity, privacy, and honor must be protected without exception.
Until this balance is established, such dramas will remain symbolic efforts, capable of stirring temporary emotions but unable to bring real change to societal awareness or systems of justice.
When the Camera Turns Off
Principles, integrity, and ethics confined to scripts, cameras, and dramatized narratives cannot reform society. The real test begins when the screen goes dark, applause fades, and one is left to answer to their own conscience, a moment where so called principled journalism too often falls short.
