A murky mission - Telegraph Journalists often run risks for a story, especially in a war zone, or countries that do not take kindly to prying outsiders. But the risk is theirs to take. If other parties are also to be placed in jeopardy, they are entitled to know the dangers involved and whether they are worth the potential hardship. In the case of Panorama's undercover report from North Korea, it is by no means clear whether these caveats applied. The BBC team entered the country as part of a delegation from the London School of Economics. Although the LSE itself was unaware of the ruse, the corporation maintains that the participants gave their informed consent. This has been disputed by at least one student, who said they were not fully apprised of the fate that might befall them were the subterfuge uncovered. The fact that it wasn't will be of little comfort to them or their parents, who would not have expected their children to be placed in harm's way. For this reason alone, the LSE is entitled to be angry. There have also been objections that the story was not properly monitored by BBC managers, and that the material gathered was not worth the deception. Yet the university does not emerge unscathed, either. One of its main objections to the way the BBC handled this matter is the threat posed to its academic integrity - which has prompted both the Royal Society and the British Academy to weigh in on its side. While that must be an important consideration, the university should ask itself whether study tours to North Korea that help to sustain its revolting regime are morally defensible in the first place. With so many questions remaining, and such high principles at stake, it is imperative that both the BBC and LSE publish full details of the correspondence within and between their organisations, so that the truth of who knew what can be established once and for all.