Question from Readers:
“I can’t accept the explanation that ‘the involved parties are not employees, so we cannot provide details.’ Am I the only one feeling this way?” Regarding the compliance violation by Taichi Kokubun, Hiroyuki Fukuda, the president of Nippon TV, stated in a press conference that “since the involved parties are not employees, we cannot provide details out
of respect for their privacy.” I find this quite odd. The issue clearly originated in the production environment of Nippon TV and was an event within the program. Even if the person affected is not an employee of Nippon TV, if they are involved with the program and connected to Nippon TV’s work, shouldn’t there be a responsibility to explain this to viewers and stakeholders? Moreover, given that this is a serious issue that warranted a press conference from the president, is it acceptable for him to evade responsibility by saying, “I cannot explain because they are not employees”? If the logic stands that explanations are unnecessary and there are no responsibilities when not an employee, then no one would want to be involved with the program. How do you all feel about the president’s statement?
The Dilemma of Involvement and Privacy
Recently, the news about Taichi Kokubun’s compliance violation, where Hiroyuki Fukuda, the president of Nippon TV, stated that “the involved parties are not employees, so we cannot provide details out of respect for their privacy,” has been a hot topic. This really bothers me as well. The problem occurred in Nippon TV’s production environment, and even if the involved party is not an employee, if they are part of the program, I believe there is a responsibility to explain. For example, I once participated in a comedy workshop where everyone was sharing ideas, and one person’s comment really lifted the mood. Later, that person got caught up in a little trouble, and we were all concerned. When the organizer said, “He is not a participant but an outsider, so I can’t provide details,” everyone felt a wave of frustration. It was a situation where a sense of responsibility as part of the community was expected.
What Lies Behind the President’s Statement?
Fukuda’s comment about “not being an employee” certainly feels like an evasion. Even though a serious issue occurred, the attitude of avoiding responsibility makes viewers wonder, “Is that really acceptable?” If a trend of not taking responsibility and not providing explanations spreads, then no one would want to be involved with the program. I personally experienced failure at a comedy event, and although everyone laughed and forgave me, if the person in charge had said, “This is not my concern,” it might have created a much sadder atmosphere. I realized that laughter can often help us overcome troubles.
How Do You Feel?
What do you think about this news? I believe that regardless of whether the involved parties are employees, there is a responsibility to explain. It’s natural to want to know the background of the programs and events we enjoy. If you have had similar experiences, please share them in the comments! It would be fun to share even the smallest episodes together. I will also think about various things for the next comedy event!
