Panorama and the LSE row.

dmclite-3.0

Where do you stand ?

I think the journalists were stupid and reckless and the programme should be shelved. What do you all think ?

majormantra

I think they might have been stupid and reckless, but I kind of want to see the program because it sounds interesting.

smoggysteve

They were quick to shelve the Jimmy Savile Panorama wern't they? Pick and choose when it suits them

Hoopdriver

SmoggySteve wrote:

They were quick to shelve the Jimmy Savile Panorama wern't they? Pick and choose when it suits them

Jimmy Savile was an entirely differen matter. As for the North Korea fiasco.

The BBC were clearly wrong and violated a lot of professional ethics in doing what they did with the LSE trip. That said, what good would shlving the production do? None. The journalists and editors, the decision makers behind this thing should be sacked. No question in my mind about that. They have no place in journalism.

smoggysteve

Cos the BBC never violated ethics before. Point I was making with the Savile edition was they decided to shelve a program to save face. Forget about the subject matter, its the fact they pick and choose what they want to do regardless of whats in the best interests of the public as a whole. For a publicly funded corporation they should be above this sort of behavior.

Hoopdriver

SmoggySteve wrote:

Cos the BBC never violated ethics before. Point I was making with the Savile edition was they decided to shelve a program to save face. Forget about the subject matter, its the fact they pick and choose what they want to do regardless of whats in the best interests of the public as a whole. For a publicly funded corporation they should be above this sort of behavior.

Even a privately funded one should be above that. I cannot imagine any of the publications I have worked for over the past 30 years doing such a thing. That is so unprofessional my mind just boggles. It violates just about every level of ethics an professional conduct in the business.

smoggysteve

Hoopdriver wrote:

SmoggySteve wrote:

Cos the BBC never violated ethics before. Point I was making with the Savile edition was they decided to shelve a program to save face. Forget about the subject matter, its the fact they pick and choose what they want to do regardless of whats in the best interests of the public as a whole. For a publicly funded corporation they should be above this sort of behavior.

Even a privately funded one should be above that. I cannot imagine any of the publications I have worked for over the past 30 years doing such a thing. That is so unprofessional my mind just boggles. It violates just about every level of ethics an professional conduct in the business.

I take it you never worked for The NOTW then?!?!?!

Hoopdriver

SmoggySteve wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

SmoggySteve wrote:

Cos the BBC never violated ethics before. Point I was making with the Savile edition was they decided to shelve a program to save face. Forget about the subject matter, its the fact they pick and choose what they want to do regardless of whats in the best interests of the public as a whole. For a publicly funded corporation they should be above this sort of behavior.

Even a privately funded one should be above that. I cannot imagine any of the publications I have worked for over the past 30 years doing such a thing. That is so unprofessional my mind just boggles. It violates just about every level of ethics an professional conduct in the business.

I take it you never worked for The NOTW then?!?!?!

Er...no

alihisgreat

Why is this only coming out after the event? Couldn't LSE have raised their objections before he went with them?

Hoopdriver

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Why is this only coming out after the event? Couldn't LSE have raised their objections before he went with them?

If they could have, they certainly should have

dmclite-3.0

Thye journalists only let the people on the trip in on what they were doing when they were waiting for the flight to N. Korea in the airport in Beijing. I don't think the LSE knew that some of the "students" were journalists and crew. The journalists even then after telling the others who they were lied about their whole ruse to "protect them", if they were caught and all of the trip was questioned in detention. What were they thinking ? An uber Ego trip, I think.

imposter2.0

Hoopdriver wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Why is this only coming out after the event? Couldn't LSE have raised their objections before he went with them?

If they could have, they certainly should have

wouldn't have been as newsworthy before...

Hoopdriver

Imposter wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Why is this only coming out after the event? Couldn't LSE have raised their objections before he went with them?

If they could have, they certainly should have

wouldn't have been as newsworthy before...

THat whole BBC crew, journalists as well as editors and producers sound like total jerks. I cannot see how they can hold their jobs. It violates every sort of professional code of conduct and set of ethics I can think of.

The Little Onion

If the LSE's version of events is to be believed (not saying it isn't, just that we have no way yet of knowing if the BBC is right, LSE is right, or somewhere in between), then this is very serious. This is in a different league to the Saville stuff, for the simple reason that the BBC may have not just undermined a serious academic research project, but quite literally put the LIVES of the LSE students and any North Koreans with which they work at risk, as well as putting any academics working in North Korea in future under severe risk. You just do not use academic researchers as human shields.

bompington

Hoopdriver wrote:

THat whole BBC crew, journalists as well as editors and producers sound like total jerks. I cannot see how they can hold their jobs. It violates every sort of professional code of conduct and set of ethics I can think of.

So let me get this right, journalists never, ever go undercover? Or are there subtle grades of ethics for when and how you can, and when and how you can't?
Is LSE's objection because, to run trips like this, they must have a relatively cosy relationship with the NK authorities which is now jeopardised?

edhornby

isn't this the same LSE that took a lot of money from Saif Ghaddafi and let him study there? this is probably because the LSE are very nervous about journalists....

Pross

As usual it depends on which side of the argument you choose to believe. LSE say the students were not aware of the dangers, BBC head of news says they were warned in advance that there would be a journalist on the trip and that if he were discovered it could lead to them being imprisoned. However, the BBC appear to have been slightly economical with the truth and not open on the number of journalists who would be present and that they would be covertly filming. It's pointless scrapping the programme now though as the damage has been done with the LSE ensuring that the issue came into the public eye so the North Koreans will already be aware that they were duped. It would have been more likely to have gone unnoticed if it had just been screened with no fuss.

Hoopdriver

bompington wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

THat whole BBC crew, journalists as well as editors and producers sound like total jerks. I cannot see how they can hold their jobs. It violates every sort of professional code of conduct and set of ethics I can think of.

So let me get this right, journalists never, ever go undercover? Or are there subtle grades of ethics for when and how you can, and when and how you can't?
Is LSE's objection because, to run trips like this, they must have a relatively cosy relationship with the NK authorities which is now jeopardised?

Don't be silly. Investigative journalists do use undercover tactics, but to hide behind the cover of people who have nothing to do with your story or project, whose lives and liberty could be put at risk, is something else altogether - a fact which ought to be evident. Or are you just having a stir?

spen666

dmclite-3.0 wrote:

Where do you stand ?

I think the journalists were stupid and reckless and the programme should be shelved. What do you all think ?

Why shelve the programme?

The "reckless" act has taken place, the programme has been made.

What benefit is there in not showing the programme now?

The Little Onion

spen666 wrote:

dmclite-3.0 wrote:

Where do you stand ?

I think the journalists were stupid and reckless and the programme should be shelved. What do you all think ?

Why shelve the programme?

The "reckless" act has taken place, the programme has been made.

What benefit is there in not showing the programme now?

So that next time, journalists will think twice before using human shields?

daviesee

My take.

If you want to do something like this it has to be done secretly.
If you want to keep a secret, don't tell anybody.

The programme should air, with a preface on the dangers involved disclosed.
If heads are to roll, it should be the ones that gave the go ahead on moral and endangerment grounds.

Wunnunda

Journalists have always used cover stories to get into closed societies. Albania, China, Burma, North Korea.... They usually use tourist groups to do it.

Hoopdriver

Wunnunda wrote:

Journalists have always used cover stories to get into closed societies. Albania, China, Burma, North Korea.... They usually use tourist groups to do it.

You know this do you?

Wunnunda

They freely admit thats how they do it - I've read enough of these types of stories over the years for it to be no surprise to me. I think people are way too sensitive. (BTW - John Sweeny has based almost his whole career on undercover journalism)

The Little Onion

The issue is not about should journalists be allowed to decieve the people they are filming (ie. the North Korean government and society) - it is fine for someone to sneak in and show what does on, particularly as there are no official ways of doing this, as foreign journalists doing this.

What is not OK is putting innocent people's lives in danger (LSE students and staff, the Koreans they work with, and other academics working in North Korea) by lying to them about what they were doing, and by using these people as cover without their permission.

the playing mantis

i always wondered what that camera crew were doing in my GY101 lectures!

danlikesbikes

Pross wrote:

As usual it depends on which side of the argument you choose to believe. LSE say the students were not aware of the dangers, BBC head of news says they were warned in advance that there would be a journalist on the trip and that if he were discovered it could lead to them being imprisoned. However, the BBC appear to have been slightly economical with the truth and not open on the number of journalists who would be present and that they would be covertly filming. It's pointless scrapping the programme now though as the damage has been done with the LSE ensuring that the issue came into the public eye so the North Koreans will already be aware that they were duped. It would have been more likely to have gone unnoticed if it had just been screened with no fuss.

^-^ Think this is a about bang on really.

Do you believe;

The BBC who state that they spoke to and gained permission of the students on the trip that they would be filming.

The LSE lecture staff & Student Union Rep who state that the students who went on the trip without knowing they were being used and therefore put them using them as 'human shields'

I've heard arguments from both sides in the press & both are stating different versions of events, but the BBC as a publicly funded body is just asking for trouble if they state they asked for and gained the students permission is asking for trouble if we later find out that this is not true.

I do however think the university have a point to make that even if the students were told and gave their permission that the reputation of the LSE may have be brought into question by the N Korean government as co-conspirtors in what they will undoubtedly call a breach of their right to allow whatever reporting in their own country they see fit.

Hoopdriver

Wunnunda wrote:

They freely admit thats how they do it - I've read enough of these types of stories over the years for it to be no surprise to me. I think people are way too sensitive. (BTW - John Sweeny has based almost his whole career on undercover journalism)

Undercover journalism and embedding a film crew into a bunch of unsuspecting students on a trip into a potentially dangerous situation are two different things. Had the BBC travelled to North Korea on their own, disguising themselves as a student group - but not involving anyone else in this subterfuge - I'd have no problem with it. THAT is undercover journalism. Not using others as your stalking horse.

Ben6899

Miss6899, LSE alumni, has received an email from LSE. It sets out LSE's stance and - I suppose - outlines the story for anyone who doesn't know what has happened. I'd like to see the same events from the BBC's perspective.

I think the BBC was reckless and one could easily argue that it put innocent students' lives at risk in the name of investigative journalism.

danlikesbikes

This is what the BBC are now saying - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22144667

Basically for those that don't wish to look up the link and not in any specific order;

Nine of the students were aged 21-28 and one was 18

Mr Thomas acknowledged the students had initially been told there was one journalist but that, when they were in Beijing before flying into Pyongyang, they were told there would be three journalists.

He said three of the students had since asked "that their images be taken out" and that they would be "pixellated or blobbed".

Students' union general secretary Ms Peters-Day - who was not on the trip - told the BBC News Channel: "One of the students made it absolutely clear that she was not made aware of what happened.

He said the students had been informed of the risks on three separate occasions and authorisation for the trip had gone "right to the top" within the BBC.

We think the risks as we explained them to the students were justified... but had we had any suggestion that lives were at risk... we wouldn't have gone anywhere near this," he said.

Our assessment was that, at most, the likelihood was deportation, but we explained to the students that the risks might go beyond that - might include arrest, detention and the possibility of not being allowed back into the country."

The LSE has complained that the students were not told there was an undercover team of three or that they were filming a high-profile documentary.


Sounds like the BBC sticking to its belief that they did discuss & gain consent from the students & the LSE stating that at least 1 of the students was no aware of what was going on & that;

"For us, this is a matter of student welfare - students were lied to, they weren't able to give their consent."

Sure this will continue to evolve in the press & more will come out.

Cleat Eastwood

I hope they dont broadcast the prog - all this time most of us believed it was a secret paradise full of chocolate bunnies and bars of gold - gawd