Undercover journalist. BBC sinks to new low.

I still think the programme was worth the effort. the sight of hospitals without patients, farms without fields or cattle, the excuses given for these strange sights brought home the full meaning of the phrase 'brain washing'

You do not need to traipse round wards to see patients. Visit any hospital in the UK, the bustle and constant movement of people through it, you will see enough patients in a walk round its main corridors to know they are there in abundance. More to the point the suggestion that patients came in for treatment in the morning and then went home in the after noon, if correct, suggests that it was little more than a minor injuries unit. Leaving the question as to where those with more serious illnesses went, if anywhere, open.

A reporter visiting a country as tightly controlled as North Korea as part of a group of tourists, albeit, all university students, is going by definition to be kept away from anything that their hosts do not want them to see but we do desperately need to know more of this country, the condition of its people and the conditions of their lives - and this was a contribution to that.

I think John Sweeney would have been congratulated for his undercover efforts in other circumstances. No-one bangs on about the risks that decent journalists have taken over the years, to bring good, investigative stories that are helpful to us - this, surely, is one such story. We're all tired of celeb-seeking hacks and paparazzi who do nothing to demonstrate good journalism. Adult students who choose to visit North Korea are already facing risks, including refusal of entry on a whim. It will be no great loss if LSE can't send more students for a while.

I watched the programme and have to say the content did not justify the risks taken. The hardest question asked was why they hadn't seen any patients in the hospital they looked round. The answer was that patients were treated in the mornings. To be fair if I was in hospital I wouldn't want a group of foreign (non medical) students coming round the ward!

FlicketyB - they have dead leaders on display in glass cases, the people have to bow in front of statues bearing the hammer and sickle, there is a lot of poverty everywhere amongst the ordinary people, the contrast between North and South Korea is very marked.

We knew it all.

Exactly! And then the programme itself didn't tell us anything we didn't already know, or could imagine.. Was it worth it?!!! (No)

This expedition was arranged without BBC involvement being officially sanctioned by LSE. The students appear to be divided about whether they were properly briefed before they arrived in Beijing. Once in Beijing, it would have been difficult for them to have dropped out - no visas for China, no return tickets from Beijing. The BBC is said to have approved the undercover assignment 'at the highest level' and to have carried out a risk assessment. Presumably this assessment included factors like the possibility of all the party disappearing into a N Korean jail for an indefinite period. Being shot? Who knows. What they didn't apparently take into account was the effect the making of the programme would have on potential future visits by other students and staff at LSE and the problems likely to be caused when people from LSE (possibly from any British university) want to visit other areas where it's difficult to get a visa. And the effect on the students' future careers. In other words, this was a BBC stunt in which LSE was embroiled without its consent or knowledge based on a risk assessment which only took account of some of the risks.

Pogs no, I havent seen any of the interviews on television but I have heard quite a few on the radio.

The students in this group were not children, moreover they are meant to be our brightest and best and most politically aware. If they weren't they wouldn't have got into the LSE in the first place.

They should have been well aware without being told what the dangers of travelling to North Korea could be, with or without an accompanying journalist, particularly under current circumstances.

And j08, I quite agree that we know that North Korea has nuclear capabilities and an unstable leader. but we emphatically do not know quite enough already about the country. We actually know very little and any information about the state of the country and its people must be invaluable at this difficult time.

Was the programme commissioned by the BBC, or did John Sweeney pitch it to them and make it sound like a good idea? He is a controversial journalist who is, perhaps, best known for his highly acrimonious encounter with the Scientologists. I have his very interesting book about them on my Kindle, but I think it's probably fair to say that they became an obsession.

sunseeker I think the trip took place before the North Korean government made that announcement about the safety of diplomats but am not sure.

These are LSE students who, presumably, had a political interest in North Korea or they would not be going on a trip there in the first place. I would have thought that they would already have had some sort of grasp of the political implications of travelling with an undercover BBC journalist. They are not school kids. I am, therefore, a little puzzled about some of the apparent innocence and some of the things that have been said. I think a proper explanation may be required to the students and perhaps the LSE. I'm not sure that it's anybody else's business.

On local radio this morning there was the comment that questions should also be asked as to the appropriateness of sending students to a country which had told governments that it could not guarantee the safety of their ambassadors.

I think the BBC should come clean as to who made the decision to send a group of journalists with the students and exactly what the students were told and the LSE should reconsider sending students to countries where there are threats of war.

Perhaps they want to show the British people how awful the regime is to the people in case it comes to military measures being taken against N Korea. Sort of "softening up".

I think we already know quite enough about N Korea anyway. They have nuclear capabilities and an unstable leader.

I would not have wanted my kids in that group.

I am beginning to wonder who actually watched the two interviews I have spoken of.

They were very direct in their questioning and the answers given were ,IMHO, unable to deflect the accusations levelled at the BBC.

I agree absolutely that there will be more to come on the story and it will be interesting to follow.

You would have thought the BBC would have squared it with the LSE beforehand though. Not just with the students.

I understand they were told about Sweeny before they left UK and met the 2 film crew in China en route. They were offered opportunity to drop out and told what the 'risks' were in UK and again in China. They were adults.

If the BBC underplayed the risks or were economical with the truth that is an issue. If the LSE knew more info and did not communicate with students that is an issue. We can speculate but these situations are often 'he said' 'she said' accusations and counter accusation as all parties try to take the moral high ground.

D'you know something we don't Glass?!!!

I think there is more to this than meets the eye.

Flickety.

Can I respectfully ask if you have watched the interviews toady with John Sweeney and the BBC representative.?

Loss of trust for the BBC in North Korea? As far as I know North Korea sees the BBC as an organ of the enemy anyway.

Having, in my student days, been involved in organising international tours, including, at the height of the Cold War, a tour for a group of visiting Russian 'students'. I am very conscious of how peoples memories can be very feeble when dealing with what they knew/didn't know, agreed/didn't agree before the event.

I suspect that the LSE is looking after its own interests and students who agreed to everything before hand in a state of high excitement are getting cold feet after the event in case it means they have blackened their copybooks with the LSE authorities.

It's not about the showing of the programme though is it!!.

It's about the underhanded way the LSE students were used. It's about the fact the students have reportedly said they have been lied to.

It's about the possible loss of trust for the BBC in N Korea in the future. It's about the fact the students could have been arrested.

It's about the BBC and it's attitude. It's about a lot more things.

I think LSE are asking that the programme is not shown. That's why the whole thing takes on a mysterious aspect because the first thing one thinks is Why not?

Typical knee-jerk reaction to immediately blame the BBC without having actually seen the programme.

The Telegraph view by Tim Stanley who says what I was vaguely thinking, that the research benefits of remaining on good terms with N Korea are not obvious!

I think the water on this is very muddy and I shall wait for more information before drawing a conclusion.

NB

Why won't the BBC say who ordered the go ahead for this debarcle. Is it a name that has been in the frame before. I don't know but I am interested to see.

The spokesman on the BBC News said. 'We thought the most 'likely' outcome, had they been caught, was deportation' What kind of idiot organisation feels that is acceptable. Absolutely no concept that lives could have been at risk.

To make matters worse they say they are dissapointed the LSE have raised this issue.