Aaron Gerow gerow at
Fri Jun 23 03:35:53 EDT 2000

>Could you offer a reason for why the report is only suggestive of, without
>naming, Shochiku?  Is this because of limits on information released by the
>police or public prosecutor's office?  Besides the risk of libel, are there
>other reasons to explain the reticence of the paper to make the connection
>you have made?

Basically, all the facts are there: the main office in Chuo-ku, the 
consideration of rebuilding it, the change in management in January 1998. 
 All fit Shochiku.  (Though if someone thinks my supposition wrong, 
please correct me).  As for why the paper did not mention the company by 
name (it also did not mention the construction companies who really did 
pay this guy money), part of it has to do with the fact none of this has 
been specified in indictments (in general, Japanese papers will not even 
print the name of a suspect until he or she have been arrested).  Also, 
at this point, there's no clear indication Shochiku has done anything 
wrong (like paying the guy money).  Again, Japanese papers (the major 
ones, not the tabloids) are much more strict about protecting the privacy 
of people and institutions than, say, the US papers, unless clear 
wrong-doing has been established.  How much this has to do with fear of 
libel is something I am less clear about, but Japanese papers do work by 
clear rules regarding privacy (thus, for instance, the names of juvenile 
offenders are never printed, even if convicted).  

Aaron Gerow

More information about the KineJapan mailing list