Sokaiya
Jonathan M. Hall
jmhall
Tue Jun 27 11:18:17 EDT 2000
Thanks to Aaron for his follow-up to my question on the sokaiya case. I
had been wondering how much of this was a case of 'privacy' or 'victim's
rights' and how much was journalism's cozy relation with business
interests--of the kind that we were criticizing earlier on the list, though
then specifically in relation to film reporting.
Jonathan
>
>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
* * * * * *
?153-0041????????1-22-1-201
tel./fax 03-3465-2570
1-22-1-201 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-0041 JAPAN
tel./fax +81-3-3465-2570
More information about the KineJapan
mailing list