As the Nakai Masahiro & FujiTV scandal continues to hog the media and public's attention, much has also been reported on FujiTV and its fellow TV stations' movements to conduct internal investigations about whether they have similar issues yet to be uncovered. Besides being wary of the likelihood that they may also have skeletons in their closet which could explode in their faces, a key factor leading TV stations to leap to action so swiftly is the likelihood of having the FujiTV's fire of sponsor exodus spread to their own backyards.
However, as this President Online article written by Shizume Hiromichi, a TV producer and writer who used to be from TV Asahi pointed out, the manner of how the internal investigation is conducted is the issue, not whether there is an investigation to begin with. Here are some key points he made in his article:
- While the public's response and attention on Nakai's retirement was trending on social media, this outcome was probably expected by TV station executives as something which would come sooner or later given the scale of the scandal and its impact on FujiTV.
- To date, most scandals of a similar nature would either end with the celebrity in question "disappearing quietly from the public eye" or the related programme to meet its end abruptly. However, this certainly would have been wishing thinking in this case.
- To avoid being implicated in FujiTV's fire, it was noted that the rival TV stations were very quick to respond with their own measures.
- First off the mark was TBS which announced on 20 Jan that it was beginning an internal investigation involving all employees at the advice of the lawyers in its compliance department.
- NTV followed suit on the next day and said that it would engage external specialists to conduct hearing sessions with its staff.
- TV Asahi was even quicker in the sense that it announced on 22 Jan that it had already conducted its first investigation since the beginning of the new year and did not find any inappropriate behaviour.
- In order to make it in time for the upcoming programming renewal period in April, TV stations needed to prove their "innocence" or else they may be seen as being similarly problematic like FujiTV. However, this also meant that they were seemingly doing this for the sake of their bottomlines and not to protect the human rights of their employees or clear themselves of suspicion and doubt from the sponsors and viewers.
- In contrast, NHK's "cold response" was noted as being due to its structure since it doesn't depend on advertisement income and sponsors. Its chairman commented on 22 Jan that NHK already has a harassment reporting system which has been working effectively and there were no internal reports of this nature to date. As such, there was no need for NHK to conduct any special investigation in response to the FujiTV scandal.
- However, just because a TV station is doing an investigation may not mean that it is done properly. The writer notes that he had gotten information from a female employee of TV Asahi (his former employer) which makes him doubt the effectiveness of such a flawed investigation.
- The investigation was not done 1-to-1 but rather in a place where everyone in the department was present and the manager asked them questions. Even if there was an issue to be reported, the environment simply did not offer any much-needed privacy especially if the incident was sensitive in nature.
- TV Asahi was seemingly in a huge hurry to conduct an investigation and applied immense pressure on the managers in various departments since the beginning of the year. As such, it was said that this contributed to some instances when male managers had asked female employees in the presence of other colleagues as to whether they had suffered any sexual assault or harassment before.
- TV Asahi's news programme "Houdou Station" reported the investigation findings on 22 Jan as "there were no reports of inappropriate behaviour". However, given the manner of how the investigation was conducted, the findings might not be fully reflective of or accurately reflect the true situation in the company.
- However, given that the investigation in question was said to be the "first investigation", it would be ideal if a proper investigation with consideration for privacy would be conducted in time to come. Otherwise, a slipshod investigation would not serve its intended purpose and fail to address concerns from viewers and sponsors.
- Details of the TV stations' investigations haven't been announced so it is a mystery as to what they are focusing on in their respective investigations.
- If the investigation is to be conducted by direct managers rather than a designated investigation team not part of the reporting hierarchy of the employees concerned, it may make it more difficult for those affected to raise their issues. This is especially if the managers are clearly inclined to fish for a "desired answer of no" from the respondents rather than be faced with the trouble that can come with bringing up potential violations and problems.
- Moreover, the gender mix in the TV stations are still very much male-dominated so there are many more male managers compared to females. It would be difficult for female employees to talk about such issues with their male bosses. In the example of TBS, it stated that its compliance department would be leading the investigation but given the amount of employees involved, it is questionable if the actual hearing sessions will be conducted by that department or the managers in various departments.
- One other important factor to consider is how big the investigation scope is going to be. Would it be sufficient to ask the employees only or should the investigation be extended to external production companies which are heavily involved in the making of TV shows? This is critical as many shows operate on the basis of TV station employees managing the production staff (both internal and external) but it is the external production houses doing the actual day-to-day tasks. As such, if the external production staff are to be excluded from the investigation, it might mean that the TV stations won't get a full and accurate picture of the situation.
On the other hand, since the external staff get work from the TV stations, this dependence would make them reluctant to raise the alarm and speak ill of their employers. Besides, the in-house producers might be unwilling to report any issues since they would be held responsible for everything that happens in their shows.
As such, this calls for the question of whether TV stations would be willing to go down this path of seeking out real answers and how to do so at the expense of its own interests.
- Last but not least, whether the employees trust their own companies is a key factor as to whether the investigation would be meaningful and successful. Given the state of things now and how the FujiTV scandal is developing, it is questionable as to whether employees would be willing to speak their minds. Especially if employees do not believe that their employers would protect them, they are not going to take the risk of telling the truth since this may also expose them to retaliation and workplace harassment. It is already well-known in the industry that anyone who is disliked by the management would get transferred to other shows but such movements are often masked as "normal job rotation" so there is no recourse for anyone who is a victim of such actions.
- As such, in view of these concerns, the writer of the article thinks that setting up the right environment where employees feel safe about telling the truth is the most important thing to be done before an investigation is conducted. And doing it in the most appropriate manner will then lead to a true reflection of the situation. Rushing to conclude an investigation may be meaningless especially if the findings are challenged and found to be lacking later on.
No comments:
Post a Comment