When people hear ‘content creator’ or the internet slang ‘influencer’, what comes to mind says a lot about how we view the digital world. The internet today mirrors society itself, filled with all kinds of voices, backgrounds and identities. And yet, not all of them are received the same way – raising questions about who we choose to believe and follow. Recently, Life of Puja, run by Bengal-based homemaker Pujarini Pradhan, who has come a long way from a simple village homemaker to an unexpected star, has come under scrutiny over her authenticity, by an internet user accusing her of being an ‘industry plant’, sparking a wider conversation and being taken seriously online. It raises an important question – Are influencers obligated to be raw and honest on reels? Are audiences uncomfortable when a voice that doesn’t fit familiar, urban ideas of an ‘intellectual’ suddenly gains visibility? Does social media still demand that creators fit into neat, urban narratives to be believed?
CE captures what Bengalureans think!
We need to accept that content creation is a profession now and brand deals are a legitimate part of it. They help creators sustain themselves, invest in better equipment and continue making content. The line is crossed when a creator uses audience trust to sell something they do not believe in, have not properly vetted or know could mislead people. Controversies like this raise trust-related concerns but they can cut both ways. On one hand, they remind audiences to be more critical online but when accusations are made without evidence, they can unfairly damage creators who have built something genuine through hard work. Scepticism is healthy, but reckless allegation is not.
Urban creators often come with visual cues we’ve been conditioned to associate with credibility: good lighting, fluent English, references. Rural creators have to work harder to earn the same trust, even when their content is equally or more substantive. This situation is holding up a mirror to something we don’t like admitting; the fact that class shapes who we believe online. We extend charity to urban creators and suspicion to rural ones, often without realising it. That’s not a problem of content, rather one of perception.
Our behaviour online is so predictable and repetitive, we are not even using our imagination when criticising something. I’m sure things would have played out differently if Puja was a man or from an urban part of the country. With this much uproar right after she got a Netflix deal, I hope more big names work with her and irk the sceptics while she continues to inspire more rural women. Despite all the sham, pretense and shallow pettiness, will all the support for her, I feel there is still hope and it is a sign that the system that tries to bring a woman down also is a system that can build her up.
We have this weird desire to see misery or simplicity from rural creators. The backlash is heavily rooted in bias. When they show agency, earn money and refuse to be victims of their circumstances, the audience feels they’ve lost control. When Puja went the other way and started discussing Sylvia Plath from a rural kitchen in a saree, it created this massive cognitive dissonance for the audience. The controversy blew up because she refused to stay in this box created by people.
Questioning Puja’s authenticity seems ironic because I don’t think anybody can afford to be fully authentic on social media. Also, what defines authenticity and who gets to define it? Secondly, if this is about her building a brand on social media – who doesn’t do that? She is choosing what she wants to present on social media, not fooling her audience. I don’t see any problem with this curation, especially when everything, including ‘day in the life’ videos are curated – why are we not criticising those too? Everything is an image and if someone is ‘fooled’ by it, I don’t think there is any media literacy in the first place.
My first impression of Puja’s content was that it felt unusually composed and self aware. There’s a certain stillness in the way she speaks that makes you pause, which is rare on social media right now. Honestly, it feels like people are less uncomfortable with her content and more with what she represents. When someone doesn’t match our mental image of ‘thoughtful’ or ‘intellectual’, we look for explanations like calling them an ‘industry plant’.
(With inputs from Nitya Dani)