Panorama and the LSE row.

The Little Onion

The problem is that hundreds of British academics do research in places like North Korea and other 'dodgy' parts of the world, and that their ability to do their work, their safety, and those of the people they work with, depends on their status as academic researchers being taken at face value, and not as secret journalists/spies/unwanted folk. This kind of behaviour from the BBC to pose as academics to do undercover filming in this context puts innocent lives at risk across the world. Look at the problems in Pakistan where the CIA posed as aid workers, and now innocent aid workers are being targetted because militants think that they are all CIA stooges.

imposter2.0

Subterfuge - makes the world go round...

danlikesbikes

The Little Onion wrote:

The problem is that hundreds of British academics do research in places like North Korea and other 'dodgy' parts of the world, and that their ability to do their work, their safety, and those of the people they work with, depends on their status as academic researchers being taken at face value, and not as secret journalists/spies/unwanted folk. This kind of behaviour from the BBC to pose as academics to do undercover filming in this context puts innocent lives at risk across the world. Look at the problems in Pakistan where the CIA posed as aid workers, and now innocent aid workers are being targetted because militants think that they are all CIA stooges.

Not to cause an argument with you, but if what your saying is correct (which I do tend to agree with you BTW) then surly the BBC & the students that went on the trip who if proved knew about the purpose of the trip are to blame for putting others at risk by their actions.

Kerguelen

Maybe John Sweeney can pop round here and give us the benefit of one of his tantrums.

iPip

I don't agree that the damage is done so they may as well show the programme. All that does is reinforce that reckless risk is acceptable if you get the story. By not showing it, other journalists might to bother to try the same tactic.

Even worse, now that this is all public, is the potential impact and risk on every other legitimate visit.

Frank the tank

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

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

I always had my suspicions especially as it seems to be the one place in the world VTech hasn't been.

Ben6899

Did anyone watch it?

I did. We'd have more luck trying to launch a nuclear warhead out of my back garden.

majormantra

Just watched it. Ethics aside, it's compelling viewing. What a horrible, terrifying place.

cougie

Storm in a teacup. All governments do similar things to get their intelligence people into countries.

If they really wanted to be secret - why would you send in a very well known journalist. A simple google would bring up his past and especially his fantastic Scientology programme.

Fascinating documentary - such a contrast between North and South and the chubby leader has got a lot to answer for.
I wonder how much longer he can keep his disciples in the dark ? They will overthrow him one day.

Tattooine

Tbh, the visual images were a lot better than the commentary, I was expecting a lot more and don't believe there were any great revelations to anyone who reads across the worlds media on a regular basis.

A militaristic state based on fear and hero worship and a prime example of Failed Communism because there always has to be someone at the top.

They do smash out a good parade though

The only valid voice was Prof Myers and that was kept brief

the playing mantis

this is the email sent out to alumni...interesting:

"Dear *******

You may be aware of current media reports on a BBC Panorama programme on North Korea, due to be aired this evening in the UK, and its link with a visit to North Korea, which took place in March 2013, in the name of the Grimshaw Club, a student society at LSE.We wanted to forward on to you an email on this subject that was sent by the School to all current staff and students at LSE on Saturday 13 April, to show you the concerns that the School has raised with the BBC over its conduct and the steps that LSE has taken to deal with the matter.Yours sincerelyThe LSE Alumni Relations Team


All School email (sent to all current LSE staff and students on Saturday 13 April 2013)The School wishes to alert all staff and students to a serious development which may affect them personally in future. This relates to the conduct of the BBC in respect of a Panorama programme entitled North Korea Undercover, which is due to be shown next Monday evening, 15 April.The programme has been produced using as cover a visit to North Korea which took place from 23-30 March 2013 in the name of the Grimshaw Club, a student society at LSE. The School authorities had no advance knowledge of the trip or of its planning.The visiting party included Mr John Sweeney, Mr Alexander Niakaris and Ms Tomiko Sweeney. In advance of the trip it was not known to the rest of the party that they were three journalists working for or with the BBC. Their purpose, posing as tourists, was to film and record covertly during the visit in order to produce the Panorama programme.LSE’s chief concerns are twofold. First, at no point prior to the trip was it made clear to the students that a BBC team of three had planned to use the trip as cover for a major documentary to be shown on Panorama. BBC staff have admitted that the group was deliberately misled as to the involvement of the BBC in the visit. The line used was that “a journalist” would join the visit. BBC staff have argued that this lack of frankness in denying the genuine members of the group the full details was done for their own benefit in the event of discovery and interrogation by North Korean authorities. It is LSE’s view that the students were not given enough information to enable informed consent, yet were given enough to put them in serious danger if the subterfuge had been uncovered prior to their departure from North Korea.BBC staff asserted in a meeting with LSE management on 9 April 2013 that the BBC had undertaken its own risk assessment in advance of the trip, which had been approved at the highest level. LSE believes that a reasonable assessor of risk, or indeed any parent contemplating their child’s involvement in such an exercise, could only have concluded that the risks taken were unacceptable.Our second major concern relates to information that came to light after the meeting on 9 April. This is that John Sweeney gained entry to North Korea by posing as a PhD student. The North Korean authorities allege that he described his occupation for entry control purposes as “LSE student, PhD in History” and gave his address as that of LSE - including a specific office room number which is actually used by a genuine member of LSE staff. Students report that the North Korean guides during the visit repeatedly addressed him as “Professor” and that he actively went along with that. John Sweeney graduated from LSE in 1980 with a BSc in Government. He is not an LSE student. If he has a PhD in History (or anything else), it is not from LSE. He does not work for the LSE.We have no information about how Mr Niakaris or Ms Sweeney may have described themselves in order to gain entry to North Korea, but no description of them as current LSE students or staff can have been accurate.While this particular trip was run in the name of a student society, the nature of LSE’s teaching and research means that aspects of North Korea are legitimate objects of study in several of our academic disciplines. Indeed, LSE academics work on aspects of many politically sensitive parts of the world, including by travel to those locations. It is vital that their integrity is taken for granted and their academic freedom preserved. The BBC’s actions may do serious damage to LSE’s reputation for academic integrity and may have seriously compromised the future ability of LSE students and staff to undertake legitimate study of North Korea, and very possibly of other countries where suspicion of independent academic work runs high.Finally, LSE is aware of grave concerns about the actions of the BBC raised by at least two students who took part in the visit and the parents of one.In light of all of the above, the Chairman of LSE asked the BBC on 10 April to withdraw the planned programme and issue a full apology to LSE for the actions of BBC staff in using the School and its good reputation as a means of deception. This endangered the students and could endanger academics in the future.LSE deeply regrets that, earlier this afternoon, the Director-General of the BBC has refused the Chairman's request.LSE is fully supportive of the principle of investigative journalism in the public interest, and applauds the work of journalists in dangerous parts of the world. We cannot, however, condone the use of our name, or the use of our students, as cover for such activities.The School stands ready to discuss with any student or member of staff who so wishes how best to address the possible difficulties which the actions of the BBC may entail for them in future."

RDW

"Six students back Panorama documentary and accuse university of exposing them to greater danger by going public":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/201 ... ticise-lse

But surely the people who will really be at risk at the NK tour guides who let the journalists get away with it? I'm guessing that the punishment may be somewhat more severe than loss of Nectar points.

No thread about NK is, of course, complete without a link to the Excellent Horse-like Lady video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5tkXgw2OMY

rick_chasey

Question you have to ask - why was Panorama doing covert stuff with students anyway?

Regardless of whether they knew or not.

There is a sanctity of academic work that is usually kept a-poltical - which is why academics from the UK can go to North Korea but not BBC journalists - and for good reason.

alihisgreat

I watched it on iplayer yesterday and there were a few interesting bits:

- barbed wire scene which gave a picture of the reality of more rural areas
- the bit in the DMZ when Sweeney's joke got lost in translation
- vivid contrast with south Korea, something which isn't necessarily 100% clear until you see the images of empty streets in pyongyang vs. a normal city like seoul.

but there was no real insight, or any real depth of content... so you've got to wonder what the programme actually achieved in the end?

Just looked like Sweeney playing spies to me.

Cleat Eastwood

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

but there was no real insight, or any real depth of content... so you've got to wonder what the programme actually achieved in the end?

Just looked like Sweeney playing spies to me.

It was propaganda pure and simple - laughable at times.

Ben6899

Rick Chasey wrote:

Question you have to ask - why was Panorama doing covert stuff with students anyway?

Regardless of whether they knew or not.

There is a sanctity of academic work that is usually kept a-poltical - which is why academics from the UK can go to North Korea but not BBC journalists - and for good reason.

That, for me, sums it up.

solosuperia

Don't forget this is the same LSE that quite happily accepted a donation of £1.5 million from the Gaddafi regime.
Oh and Saif Gaddafi paid £4000 a month to a LSE tutor prior to receiving his PhD.
There have been claims that parts of Saif al-Islam's thesis were ghost-written or plagiarised

The BBC did broadcast a program about it.
Just thought it was worth a mention.

Jez mon

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

I watched it on iplayer yesterday and there were a few interesting bits:

- barbed wire scene which gave a picture of the reality of more rural areas
- the bit in the DMZ when Sweeney's joke got lost in translation
- vivid contrast with south Korea, something which isn't necessarily 100% clear until you see the images of empty streets in pyongyang vs. a normal city like seoul.

but there was no real insight, or any real depth of content... so you've got to wonder what the programme actually achieved in the end?

Just looked like Sweeney playing spies to me.

I think a fair few people don't realise the reality of DPRK, I guess to an extent what it achieved was a pretty reasonable overview of the situation. There's plenty of stuff which could have been more interesting to cover though...

Vice documentary on North Korean labour camps in Russia for example (presenter is pretty annoying, but it's an interesting story)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awQDLoOnkdI

Or trying to get down to the truth about the prison camps

http://www.businessinsider.com/life-in- ... un-2013-3#

Hoopdriver

SoloSuperia wrote:

Don't forget this is the same LSE that quite happily accepted a donation of £1.5 million from the Gaddafi regime.
Oh and Saif Gaddafi paid £4000 a month to a LSE tutor prior to receiving his PhD.
There have been claims that parts of Saif al-Islam's thesis were ghost-written or plagiarised

The BBC did broadcast a program about it.
Just thought it was worth a mention.

What does any of that have to do with this?

danlikesbikes

Hoopdriver wrote:

SoloSuperia wrote:

Don't forget this is the same LSE that quite happily accepted a donation of £1.5 million from the Gaddafi regime.
Oh and Saif Gaddafi paid £4000 a month to a LSE tutor prior to receiving his PhD.
There have been claims that parts of Saif al-Islam's thesis were ghost-written or plagiarised

The BBC did broadcast a program about it.
Just thought it was worth a mention.

What does any of that have to do with this?

Possibly to show that the BBC & LSE have no love for each other and might go some way to explain why the LSE came out all guns blazing with 'BBC took our students without their knowledge' then had to climb down.

I'm a partizan in this but think the LSE would have gained much more empathy if they had come out and bashed the BBC with the ethic's of their reporting as I certainly would never have considered it and do see where they are coming from and would have given a lot more support if they have used their academic powers to attack the BBC rather make a side show over who knew what & when and then when it all comes out in the wash appears that all the students were aware of it.

Hoopdriver

Danlikesbikes wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

SoloSuperia wrote:

Don't forget this is the same LSE that quite happily accepted a donation of £1.5 million from the Gaddafi regime.
Oh and Saif Gaddafi paid £4000 a month to a LSE tutor prior to receiving his PhD.
There have been claims that parts of Saif al-Islam's thesis were ghost-written or plagiarised

The BBC did broadcast a program about it.
Just thought it was worth a mention.

What does any of that have to do with this?

Possibly to show that the BBC & LSE have no love for each other and might go some way to explain why the LSE came out all guns blazing with 'BBC took our students without their knowledge' then had to climb down.

I'm a partizan in this but think the LSE would have gained much more empathy if they had come out and bashed the BBC with the ethic's of their reporting as I certainly would never have considered it and do see where they are coming from and would have given a lot more support if they have used their academic powers to attack the BBC rather make a side show over who knew what & when and then when it all comes out in the wash appears that all the students were aware of it.

It is true that it is an ethical matter and the LSE should have stuck to that. That said, rehashing past grief and slights between the two bodies is similarly a side show. The issue here is, or should be, the appalling lapse of professionalism and even the most basic ethics by journalists, cameramen, producers and editors at the BBC.

danlikesbikes

Hoopdriver wrote:

Danlikesbikes wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

SoloSuperia wrote:

Don't forget this is the same LSE that quite happily accepted a donation of £1.5 million from the Gaddafi regime.
Oh and Saif Gaddafi paid £4000 a month to a LSE tutor prior to receiving his PhD.
There have been claims that parts of Saif al-Islam's thesis were ghost-written or plagiarised

The BBC did broadcast a program about it.
Just thought it was worth a mention.

What does any of that have to do with this?

Possibly to show that the BBC & LSE have no love for each other and might go some way to explain why the LSE came out all guns blazing with 'BBC took our students without their knowledge' then had to climb down.

I'm a partizan in this but think the LSE would have gained much more empathy if they had come out and bashed the BBC with the ethic's of their reporting as I certainly would never have considered it and do see where they are coming from and would have given a lot more support if they have used their academic powers to attack the BBC rather make a side show over who knew what & when and then when it all comes out in the wash appears that all the students were aware of it.

It is true that it is an ethical matter and the LSE should have stuck to that. That said, rehashing past grief and slights between the two bodies is similarly a side show. The issue here is, or should be, the appalling lapse of professionalism and even the most basic ethics by journalists, cameramen, producers and editors at the BBC.

Think your missing the point I was making.

Yes the ethics is the issue now, however this all came about by the 'side show' as you put it brought up by the LSE & as such as a bystander to all this with their past history with the BBC I find it hard to have massive amount of empathy with either side in this argument.

The BBC were right in what they were trying to do but went about it in what was not the best way & perhaps have/have not caused damage to academics free rights to countries not afforded to reporters, time will only tell if this is the case or not.

LSE were right to question the BBC but lack some credibility IMHO as they have history with the BBC & went at this like a bull in china shop and when looking at their initial arguments managed to get their story completely wrong. Have to say that when I saw the first 3 TV reports & 2 newspaper articles it looked the LSE getting up on their soap box and trying to bash someone when they had their info all wrong.

IMHO they LSE should have got their facts right & bashed the BBC with the damage they were doing to academics free rights & perhaps they would have got more support from the independent watcher & perhaps some other organisations would have joined in too? Perhaps the teachers unions, student unions & other press organisations looking to shift some blame for poor reporting onto the BBC.

alihisgreat

Jez mon wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

I watched it on iplayer yesterday and there were a few interesting bits:

- barbed wire scene which gave a picture of the reality of more rural areas
- the bit in the DMZ when Sweeney's joke got lost in translation
- vivid contrast with south Korea, something which isn't necessarily 100% clear until you see the images of empty streets in pyongyang vs. a normal city like seoul.

but there was no real insight, or any real depth of content... so you've got to wonder what the programme actually achieved in the end?

Just looked like Sweeney playing spies to me.

I think a fair few people don't realise the reality of DPRK, I guess to an extent what it achieved was a pretty reasonable overview of the situation. There's plenty of stuff which could have been more interesting to cover though...

Vice documentary on North Korean labour camps in Russia for example (presenter is pretty annoying, but it's an interesting story)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awQDLoOnkdI

Or trying to get down to the truth about the prison camps

http://www.businessinsider.com/life-in- ... un-2013-3#

Thanks for the link, I always like Vice vids (despite the often annoying presenters) but this one definitely had a very interesting perspective on the camps in Russia.