Reader’s Question:
What does it mean when people say they can’t trust a neutral third-party committee? What did they want us to believe from the start? I’m really curious about what Masahiro Nakai ultimately wanted. Even though the third-party committee from Fuji TV conducted an investigation and prepared a thorough report, they remained silent for over a month, and suddenly came
out with a rebuttal saying there was “no neutrality” and “no violent sexual acts.” Honestly, I find that quite lame. A third-party committee is supposed to be established so that companies can have a fair investigation from an external perspective, right? As lawyer Katsutoshi Wakasa also mentioned, since “neutrality and fairness” are the premise, it is normally unheard of to complain about a report, and I think it’s risky. By picking a fight, it’s almost like saying, “I am innocent,” yet we haven’t heard anything from the person about what actually happened that day. It only seems like they are strongly asserting the points that are convenient for them. Additionally, crisis management consultant Kuniyoshi Shirai pointed out that the rebuttal is way too late. If they weren’t satisfied, shouldn’t they have said something sooner? After leaving it for over a month, suddenly saying, “The term sexual violence is a bit…” and even requesting evidence disclosure raises the question of why they didn’t seize the opportunity to rebut earlier. Even if they claim to have “burned their bridges and made a bold move,” they were the ones who prepared an escape route from the start. To be honest, even if they’re waving around the idea of a lawsuit, there’s no evidence presented, and no explanation from that day. Just saying, “That’s not true,” isn’t going to convince anyone.
Thoughts on Neutral Third-Party Committees
Recently, there has been a lot of discussion surrounding Masahiro Nakai, which naturally piques interest. Especially when the topic of a neutral third-party committee comes up, it can feel quite complicated. I believe the purpose of establishing such a committee is for companies or individuals to undergo a fair investigation, but it seems many people have doubts about that. When I talk about these issues with friends, we sometimes get really into it. We often ask each other, “Is this really fair?” A friend once said, “A third-party committee is ultimately set up to protect that company, right?” I thought that perspective had some merit.
Nakai’s Rebuttal
When Nakai said something about “the definition of sexual violence,” I honestly thought, “Now of all times?” Because without clearly explaining what happened initially, it’s hard for people to believe him. A friend remarked, “Just saying ‘that’s not true’ without presenting evidence has zero persuasive power,” and I found that very reasonable. I also strive to back up my opinions with solid reasoning. For instance, when I recently went to a comedy show with friends, I said, “This is funny,” but if I don’t explain which parts I found funny, I might just get a response like, “That’s just your opinion.” So, I really feel that specific evidence and examples are important.
Is It Acceptable for It to Take Time?
We’ve also discussed the delay in the rebuttal. A friend suggested, “I think it’s important that the new lawyer is carefully reviewing everything,” but I replied, “However, if it takes too long, it leaves a bad impression.” While it’s indeed important to proceed cautiously, public scrutiny can be unforgiving. I’ve realized the importance of timing when I have something to announce. For example, if I miss the right moment to share a funny story in a group chat with friends, everyone often forgets about it. If I miss that timing, even the best stories can lose their charm.
Share Your Thoughts
Through discussions like these, we can learn something valuable. What do you think about Nakai’s case? I’d love to hear your experiences and opinions in the comments. I want to engage with everyone’s thoughts and gain insights from them as well.
