The Kumamoto Earthquake and the Shopping Mall Explosion: Are We Too Quick to Look for a Villain on Social Media?

The extent of the damage caused by the Kumamoto earthquake is gradually becoming clearer.

When I saw that it had registered the highest level of 7 on Japan’s seismic intensity scale, I braced myself for a much greater loss of life. The relatively low number of fatalities was at least one small mercy amid the tragedy.

Even so, several precious lives were lost in a gas explosion at a shopping mall following the earthquake.

One news report about the incident caught my attention.

Before the gas explosion, three employees of an apparel company reportedly returned to their store despite an evacuation order.

According to relatives, the company had instructed them to place the day’s sales proceeds in a safe.

If that is true, criticism that their lives should have taken priority over the money is entirely understandable.

I also believe the company has a responsibility to explain what happened.

By refusing interview requests and remaining silent after the accident, the company has inevitably created the impression that it may be hiding something. From a crisis-management perspective, that seems like a serious mistake.

At the same time, however, something else troubles me.

In the age of social media, we seem far too eager to decide who the villain is.

In this case, comments blaming the company and its president spread almost immediately.

Of course, if such an instruction was given, it should be investigated rigorously.

But there is one question we should consider calmly:

Who could have predicted that the shopping mall would explode?

People can imagine a building being damaged by an earthquake.

They can imagine aftershocks.

But how many people anticipated a gas leak, followed by ignition and a major explosion, and acted on that possibility?

I certainly did not.

That does not mean it was acceptable to ignore an evacuation order.

Returning to a dangerous area was most likely the wrong decision.

But there is a major difference between ordering someone back while knowing an explosion was likely and expecting them to retrieve the money and return immediately.

After an accident, we inevitably judge past decisions with full knowledge of the outcome.

Psychologists call this hindsight bias.

Once we know what happened, we convince ourselves that the danger should have been obvious from the beginning.

In reality, the people at the scene made their decisions without knowing what would happen next.

That is why accident investigations exist.

That is why the police investigate.

These processes are meant to establish facts and determine causes step by step.

On social media, however, the search for a villain often begins before that process has even started.

Turning one person into the villain transforms a complicated accident into a simple story.

I understand the appeal. Human beings want clear answers and a clean line between right and wrong.

Reality, however, is rarely as simple as a story.

The company has a responsibility to explain itself.

If it gave a dangerous instruction, that decision should be scrutinized rigorously.

At the same time, we should not forget that no one appears to have anticipated the explosion itself.

Learning from an accident and choosing a single villain so that we can feel reassured may look similar, but they are completely different things.

Social media has made many parts of life faster and more convenient.

But I cannot help wondering whether making the search for someone to blame faster is really an improvement.