Just treat this as a minor quibble (maybe it shouldn’t be) from my web surfing observations yesterday. I was scrolling down the front page of Indianpad and noticed a story that had already amassed ten votes. The story was headlined ‘In pics: Beauty and the Beast’ so I assumed either it was someone’s tongue-in-cheek commentary on AbhiAsh wedding with a picture of an unshaven Abhishek as noted earlier by Sakshi. But when I opened the story on Indianpad, I saw the following story featuring Vinod Kambli and his wife:
Now although, Kambli isn’t the handsomest hunk around and his wife is admittedly a hottie but the story clearly wasn’t aimed to show how Kambli had ‘lucked out’. And Kambli is definitely not a beast compared to other men. Notice the comment along with a picture that was posted below the story followed by the tag of ‘beast’ once again:
Notice anything common about the definition of a ‘beast’? Also, if you google the chick (I had to coz I have never heard of her) in the comment i.e. Kim Kardarshian, you’ll know her claim to fame. Would Sachin Tendulkar be called a beast even if his wife was twice as hot?
Note that this isn’t a commentary on Indianpad which according to me is one of the few successful Web 2.0 sites in India today (love the fact that they share ad revenue with their users). On ocassions, they have eclectic non-blog content and hilarious images. This might be merely a reflection of blatant discriminatory attitude based on skin color by a section of their online users. But I am surprised that the story received 10 votes even from some of the sites frequent users. I am not judging ogling at Kambli’s obviously hot wife but I do take offense on the story headline. The way in which any story is presented certainly makes a difference in the way readers perceive it, right? I’m sure this minor quibble and half-hearted rant will not register in their rapidly growing community but I can simply voice displeasure on my blog, right?