2025年12月21日，新东方创始人俞敏洪在讲话中自嘲成为"道歉哥"，该视频在网上广为流传。 视频中俞敏洪表示："提出批评的员工没受影响，该骂骂，骂完继续工作，我们有8万人，管理者加起来就是上万人，平均每一个人管8—10个人，总有些 管理者做事情的时候不到位，有员工有意见要抱怨，那很正常。到现在为止我就一天到晚向员工道歉，向客户道歉。" 从公开舆论和其本人自嘲的情况来看，俞敏洪大概率是公开道歉最为频繁的中国企业家之一，其道歉的方面覆盖企业管理、言论不当、员工诉求等多个领 域，频率之高、引发的关注度之广，在国内企业家中十分少见。 2025年11月16日，新东方迎来成立32周年，创始人俞敏洪身处南极向全体员工发出一封全员信，却未曾想引发了舆论风波。信中俞敏洪提到："此刻，我 正站在南极的冰雪世界中。四周是浩瀚的洁白、翡翠般的冰山和无边的宁静。""在这片远离尘嚣的纯净之地，我热烈祝贺新东方32周年的生日快乐！" | 商贸分类 18:05 司 | 站在南极,找看到了企鹅在冰雪中 | | --- | --- | | 收件人:全国教职员工 > | 存。它们在极端环境中,靠着彼此 | | | 与坚守,度过了一个又一个冬天, ...

Core Viewpoint - The incident involving the "most active five-person group" has raised significant concerns regarding the integrity of public procurement processes and the potential for systemic issues within government operations [2][7]. Group 1: Incident Overview - The controversy began with a procurement announcement from the Zhuxi County Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau, where the names of the evaluation committee members matched those from a widely circulated list of common Chinese names [2][3]. - Media investigations revealed that these names appeared across various public and commercial lists, indicating a pattern of misuse in government procurement, administrative penalties, and other public records [5][6]. Group 2: Media Investigation and Findings - Following the initial discovery, media outlets conducted extensive investigations, uncovering that the names had been used in multiple contexts, including administrative penalties for street occupation and various competition entries [5][7]. - The media's persistent efforts highlighted the potential for deeper issues related to public resource allocation, administrative credibility, and the right to public information [7][8]. Group 3: Implications and Calls for Action - The incident has prompted calls for a thorough investigation into the possible corruption and mismanagement behind the use of fictitious names in official documents, emphasizing the need for accountability in public procurement processes [7][8]. - The media's role in uncovering the truth has been recognized as crucial, showcasing the importance of constructive public oversight in maintaining governmental integrity and public trust [8][9].

Core Points - The meeting emphasized the importance of implementing the spirit of the Central Eight Regulations and promoting strict governance of the Party [2][3] - There is a strong focus on self-revolution and continuous improvement in work style, with a commitment to deepening reform and enhancing institutional mechanisms [2] - The need for strict supervision and the integration of internal and public oversight was highlighted to foster a positive work environment [3] Group 1 - The meeting called for persistent efforts in learning and implementing Xi Jinping's important discourse on strengthening Party conduct [2] - A commitment to a thorough self-revolution in work style and the necessity of maintaining a problem-oriented approach was stressed [2] - The importance of strict education, management, and supervision of the cadre team was underscored [2] Group 2 - The meeting highlighted the need for a robust anti-corruption campaign and the integration of wind and corruption investigations [2] - Emphasis was placed on the role of early intervention and strict adherence to discipline and regulations [2] - The meeting called for the enhancement of education and guidance in building a clean culture and the importance of warning education [2][3] Group 3 - The necessity of strengthening supervision and combining internal Party oversight with public supervision was emphasized [3] - The meeting aimed to enhance the effectiveness of internal supervision and leverage public opinion as a "sentinel" [3] - The goal is to create a positive atmosphere that encourages Party members to take responsibility and demonstrate a spirit of dedication [3]

Core Viewpoint - The incident highlights a troubling trend where a major company resorts to complaints instead of engaging in constructive dialogue or providing evidence to counter criticism [1][10][14] Group 1: Company Actions - Xiaomi filed a complaint against a self-media article for "defaming its reputation," but the complaint lacked specific evidence or claims of actual damage [1][8] - The complaint was characterized as an attempt to suppress dissent rather than a legitimate legal action, with no clear legal basis or format [8][10] - Xiaomi's approach reflects a pattern of prioritizing image management over addressing valid criticisms, indicating a reliance on complaints to control public perception [10][12] Group 2: Public Response - The self-media individual responded to Xiaomi's complaint by emphasizing the importance of factual and legal foundations for any claims, criticizing the company's tactics as an abuse of complaint rights [12][14] - The public sentiment suggests that consumers expect companies to engage with criticism constructively rather than resorting to legal threats [12][14] - The incident serves as a reminder that in a legal society, no entity is above scrutiny, and companies should focus on improving their products and communication rather than silencing critics [14]

Core Viewpoint - The recent dispute between internet celebrity Luo Yonghao and Xibei over prepared dishes is coming to an end, with Xibei issuing an apology and committing to nine corrective measures by October 1, including using non-GMO soybean oil and offering more freshly made dishes [1][3]. Group 1: Company Actions and Responses - Xibei has acknowledged significant discrepancies between its production processes and customer expectations, indicating a commitment to transparency and brand repair [3][4]. - Luo Yonghao has decided to refrain from further pursuing the issue, reflecting a more rational approach and awareness of his influence [3][4]. - The corrective measures taken by Xibei are seen as a positive step towards addressing public concerns and improving the company's reputation [3][4]. Group 2: Industry Implications and Perspectives - The interaction between internet influencers and businesses is evolving into a constructive dialogue, where issues raised lead to corporate accountability and industry improvement [3][4]. - The challenges faced by Xibei serve as a reminder of the difficulties in maintaining a successful business, with calls for a more empathetic public perspective towards entrepreneurs [4][9]. - The broader context highlights the importance of a healthy public discourse in fostering a supportive business environment, especially for private enterprises [9].

Core Points - The incident involving a Mercedes driver allegedly using her authority to force another driver to yield has sparked significant public interest and debate [1][2][12] - A working group has been established by the Guangxi Border Inspection Station to investigate the matter [2][12] Group 1: Incident Details - The incident occurred on July 22, when a local driver encountered a Mercedes vehicle and was pressured by the female driver, who displayed an "administrative law enforcement" certificate [7][9] - The male passenger in the Mercedes reportedly revealed the local driver's personal information, including his address, during the confrontation [9][11] - After the incident, the local driver posted a video online, which garnered over 10 million views, leading to a visit from the Mercedes driver and police officers demanding the video be deleted [11][12] Group 2: Public and Official Reactions - The local driver has called for the disciplinary committee to intervene, questioning how an ordinary citizen could mobilize police and local officials [2][12] - The Guangxi Internet Rumor Refutation Platform confirmed that rumors regarding the Mercedes driver being a police leader were false [4] - Public commentary emphasizes the need for a thorough investigation and transparent communication from authorities to address public concerns and restore trust [12][13][14]

Core Viewpoint - The incident involving Hunan Fengxu Cable Co., Ltd. highlights issues related to product quality and the response of company representatives to media scrutiny, raising concerns about corporate governance and accountability in the industry [4][19]. Group 1: Incident Overview - On July 15, 2025, a confrontation occurred between the legal representative of Hunan Fengxu Cable Co., Ltd., Xie Moupei, and journalists during an interview regarding alleged substandard cable quality [1][4]. - Xie Moupei was reported to have violently damaged journalists' equipment, leading to his criminal detention for intentional destruction of property [1][4][19]. - The incident resulted in injuries to one journalist and damage to multiple recording devices, including cameras and microphones [4][16]. Group 2: Background and Context - The journalists were investigating a complaint from a consumer, Mr. Chen, who reported that the cables purchased from the company were potentially unsafe and did not meet quality standards [6][9]. - Mr. Chen had sought testing for the cables, which were found to be non-compliant with the required standards, yet the company denied any quality issues [6][9][19]. - The company was established in 2013, with a registered capital of 20 million RMB and a paid-in capital of 1.4 million RMB, indicating its operational scale within the metal products industry [19]. Group 3: Company Response - Following the incident, Xie Moupei claimed that the information circulating online was inaccurate, indicating a lack of transparency and accountability from the company [17][19]. - The Chinese Journalists Association expressed concern over the incident, emphasizing the legal protection of legitimate media supervision [19].

Group 1 - The core viewpoint highlights the tension between social media scrutiny and the operational realities of businesses, particularly in the context of the jade products from the company "胖东来" which faced allegations of high profit margins and product quality [2] - Regulatory bodies conducted inspections and concluded that "胖东来" has an average profit margin not exceeding 20% and that their certification is valid, which has led to public support for the company [2] - The article discusses the negative impact of unfounded criticisms from internet influencers, which can distract regulatory resources and create unnecessary burdens for legitimate businesses [2] Group 2 - The term "网红企业" (internet celebrity enterprises) is used to describe companies that, due to their success, become targets for negative online narratives, which can be an unfair burden on them [3] - There is a call for creating a better public opinion environment for these successful companies to allow them to focus on development without the distraction of negative information [3] - The article warns against excessive praise ("捧杀") of companies, suggesting that while they should be recognized for their achievements, it is also important to maintain a balanced perspective on their shortcomings [3]