Criticism of anything is good, as it helps us improve, as is opinion.
If Daniel Scuka's assumptions were backed by some hard figures then it
would be a useful criticism but it IS NOT.
The problem with the article (specifically the "Dirty Little Secret") is
that it is not substantiated by facts, yet it tries to pass on a bleak
opinion based on some personal assumptions and/or a small snapshot of
the real picture.
If he actually got some hard figures on the matter and published the
same article that's fine and it would be valuable information. Such
information is sadly lacking and I'm sure everyone would welcome it.
But Daniel has not been able to get any solid facts on the matter but
instead of saying so has filled in the gaps with his own speculation as
to what silence means.
The title of the article itself clearly implies that it is "reporting"
on some fact that has been hidden, and NOT conveying an opinion.
Opinions are great and valuable the reputable press always makes it
clear to readers what is opinion and what is not.
The tone of articles in Japan Inc. are disproportionately negative on
the whole iMode/Japan Mobile thing. They simply should have the decency
to NOT to publish opinions based on speculation or not to mix oppinion
with reporting. Whilst small, they are one of the prominent
representatives of Japan to the world (or claim to be) and as such have
a duty to a certain level of accuracy/objectiveness.
If they convey unsubstantiated negative opinions concerning iMode and
Japans mobile market it serves to stifles interest and enthusiasm and
effects everyone doing business in that market.
That is just needlessly destructive and I don't understand how they
stand to gain from it.
The Japan Times also has a pitiful record lately of misrepresenting or
conveying unjustified negative opinions. Such as Reiji Yoshida claiming
FOMA phones to be "Next to Useless" and reporting a "fall in phone
shipments" on 17 Aug.
The International press often picks up information from the English
language publications in Japan and then reprints a further distorted
view of it to the world. It's a fair bet that in the next few weeks
well see some paraphrasing of Daniel's opinions in some larger foreign
publication.
So much rhetoric concerning Japan starts out in this way and the next
thing you know it's an accepted "fact" overseas.
Japan Inc and Japan Times therefore have a much greater effect on world
opinion than their own readership and a corresponding duty to be
objective.
If we live or do business here in Japan we have the duty to act as
positive (or at the very least neutral) ambassadors for the country in
our foreign dealings. Japan gets a hard enough time in the foreign
press without the foreigners living here contributing to the issue.
Regards,
David Davies
http://www.intadev.com
[ Need archives? How to unsubscribe? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
Received on Fri Sep 7 10:48:38 2001