"In the next half hour the undercover agents for the EIA will risk their lives to expose the world-wide trade in wild species. Their only weapons are hidden cameras and microphones and a deep commitment to save endangered species."

But the half hour to which British TV viewers were actually subjected on May 25 was yet another "exposure" of the killing of abundant pilot whales in the Faroe Islands for domestic consumption. No world-wide trade, no endangered species. It was also the latest installment in the biggest media coup ever for an animal rights organisation, and the furthest British television has ever strayed from objective reporting.

Animal Detectives is a seven-part series of the EIA's trademark fare - alleged illegal trade, cruelty and extinction - co-produced by Goldhawk Television and Eco-Detectives, a production company wholly owned by the directors of the EIA. But if the recycled footage was tired, the big news was that the EIA had found a television company - Carlton TV - willing to broadcast unashamed propaganda in the guise of hard reporting

This appraisal was borne out by EIA spokesman Stan Blackley who told the High North Alliance that the program's aim was to report on the boycott campaign the EIA has been waging for the last two years to force the Faroese to abandon the hunt. And to underline the point, the narrator of the program concludes with an unabashed plug for the campaign: "Unless this (the boycott) works, the kill will go on." The program ends with details of how to contact the EIA for further information.

In addition to the EIA being the subject of the program, Blackley confessed that almost all the footage was provided by the EIA, except for a few isolated scenes shot by a freelancer assigned by Goldhawk. This cameraman turned out to be Clive Lonsdale, husband of EIA director Jenny. Blackley furthermore stated that all the interviewers were EIA campaigners, and that the filming was conducted as part of their campaign duties.

With all these elements working in favour of the EIA, how could Carlton hope to end up with anything but 30 minutes of hype?

Post-Production Process
According to Don Christopher, Carlton's controller of Compliance and Legal Affairs, the secret lies in the post-production process, during which impartiality - in the legal sense, at least - is assured.

The Broadcasting Act, which to companies like Carlton is like the Ten Commandments, requires "that due impartiality is preserved on the part of the person [Carlton] providing the service as respects matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to matters of public policy."

Harpoon asked Christopher how Carlton could possibly guarantee impartiality when campaigners were allowed to report on themselves. He responded that using material provided by campaigners was not an uncommon practice, and that it did not constitute a problem as the post-production process ensured the impartiality of the final result.

Christopher claimed to have personally overseen the post-production process and to have been satisfied with what he saw, but what really went on in the editing room is unclear. According to series producer Paul Cleary of Goldhawk, he had total editorial control and the EIA had no creative input. Blackley, however, maintained that editorial control was divided between Goldhawk and Eco-Detectives _ the company owned by the EIA's directors.

Fair Representation
The Broadcasting Act further requires that "the choice of participants in a research-led investigative report will be determined by the need to be fair to the subject matter." But on this point, no lawyer in possession of even half the facts could honestly say justice was served.

Prior to the program's screening, Louis Wilson of the non-governmental Faroe Islands Solidarity Committee wrote to Carlton asking for reassurance that the views of the majority of Faroese people would be represented. Christopher replied succinctly: "The programme makers sought the views of the Faroese Government, who declined to take part."

The ball was then picked up by Faroese Director of Fisheries Kjartan Hoydal, who wrote: "Neither my Government colleagues nor myself are aware of any such invitation being received, much less declined. I would stress that our Government would take a very serious view of the matter if Carlton TV were to broadcast a bogus claim that we were invited to take part in the programme."

Christopher replied: "I understand that in their research for this film the EIA, its coproducers, sought to contact a number of people in the government to obtain their views on killing of pilot whales. None of them was prepared to speak to the EIA. They included people within your department and a government scientist, Director Bloch (sic; Dorete Bloch)."

However, there was never any argument that people in the Faroese government had refused to give interviews to the EIA. The problem for Hoydal and others was that no one had ever been informed that the EIA were filming for television, nor had they been approached by people claiming to represent Goldhawk or Carlton.

Christopher's letter continued: "Nonetheless, our film does give fair representation to the views of the government, a government MP, the large majority of the population, and the Pilot Whalers' Association." Lawyers are known for imaginative interpretations, but could he be talking about the same program? The "views of the government" to which Christopher refers are presented not by a government spokesman but by the narrator, who sums them up as follows: "The government decides silence is the best weapon against the EIA." The "government MP" Christopher flaunts with such aplomb turns out to be not a Faroese MP but a Faroese representative in the Danish parliament filmed at a press conference, talking not about whaling per se but toxins in whale meat.

Who Christopher means by the "large majority of the population" is hard to say. No interviews are conducted with identified members of the general public, but by means of a hidden camera the EIA did catch Louis Wilson while drinking in a bar. Wilson, an Englishman, presumed to make a few comments about the views of the Faroese people.

Only with the Pilot Whalers' Association does Christopher's assertion have a ring of truth. Chairman Hans Jacob Hermansen had refused a written request for a meeting with Gillian Stacey, leader of the Pilot Whale Campaign, so the EIA sent in an unknown face instead. «He refused to speak to the EIA so I will have to speak to him under cover,> says intrepid reporter Jocaster Shakespeare. She then gains Hermansen's confidence by posing as a freelance journalist on assignment for She magazine. While Shakespeare pretends to take notes, the camera in her bogus photographer's bag is rolling for the EIA.

"The EIA never informed me at any time that they were filming for television," said an exasperated Hermansen after seeing himself on screen. "If they had been real journalists working for an independent production company, we would of course have given them our views. But when Carlton sent the EIA campaigners to do their filming - people who are campaigning to destroy our economy - they effectively denied us the opportunity to present our side. And even if they had told us the true purpose of the film, how could we ever believe they would present our views fairly?"

Fuzz Balls
But if the EIA played fast and loose with the defenders of pilot whaling, they played even looser when it came to presenting views sympathetic to their cause. Three interviews were conducted with people alleged to be locals opposed to pilot whaling, who apparently lived in fear of their lives for speaking out. In so doing, however, the EIA put a new twist on the rule of protecting a source. "We've had to disguise this person's identity totally by using an actor," says the narrator as the first interviewee recounts tales of horror. And "disguise" is the right word: even the actor, who has no reason to fear reprisals, shows nothing but a pair of feet. Next an actress, her back to the camera, portrays a woman "completely and utterly harassed" and living "in a daily climate of fear", recounting a gripping tale of wastage. "It was on the radio news how much meat was wasted," she recounts. But why the EIA had to go deep under cover and risk her life when they could have just turned on the radio is not explained.

A third actor, his head concealed by a fuzz ball, conveniently provides quotes that belong in an EIA flyer. The pilot whalers kill "for the fun and the excitement of it and that's all." Drunks are particularly enthusiastic, and even boys of 14 "just keep stabbing."

In fact, throughout the program not only did no one willingly go on camera to defend pilot whaling, but no one went on camera to oppose it either. The only identified sources opposing pilot whaling are eye-witness accounts by EIA campaigners.

Ethics Be Damned
Aside from the important matter of presenting campaign propaganda as hard news, Carlton's acceptance of this type of investigative reporting must be questioned on ethical grounds. On the matter of hidden cameras and microphones, the ITC code of ethics is explicit: the use of these devices is only acceptable when "the material so acquired is essential to establish the credibility and authority of a story."

After seeing himself on television, an appalled Louis Wilson recalled what he thought had been a social drink with the EIA's Stacey. "I never refused to give statements on camera," he told Harpoon. "I was simply never asked. Three days ago I appeared on Sky News and the following day on BBC Radio 5. Why did Carlton need a hidden camera as though they were filming someone involved in criminality?"

For Hans Jacob Hermansen the after-taste was made more bitter by the realisation his interviewer had lied about her identity. The Harpoon asked EIA spokesman Steve Trent what criteria are used to determine when a hidden camera is appropriate. His response defied belief: "We are looking for the truth, and when a hidden camera is needed to get the truth, then we use it. We have legal advice, and we have high moral and ethical standards."

When asked why Wilson had been filmed secretly after having agreed to talk to the EIA, Trent kept repeating: "Watch the program. It's all explained in the program." It wasn't. Harpoon hopes to get better answers from Carlton about its responsibilities regarding secret camera work.

The ITC states that whenever a producer considers it necessary to use hidden microphones and cameras, "he or she must wherever practicable, obtain the explicit consent of the licensee's most senior programme executive or the designated alternate before such material is recorded ... Consent is required again before any material obtained by secret recording is transmitted."

Undercover Agents at IWC
IWC representatives not wishing to be filmed or recorded without their consent are advised to take particular care in the proximity of the following people who appear in the official List of Delegates as given, but are all working for the Environmental Investigation Agency:

A. Thornton     representing EIA
J. Knecht       representing EIA
D. Bowles       representing Animal Welfare Institute
K. Hanly        representing David Shepherd Conservation Foundation
S. Arditti      representing David Shepherd Conservation Foundation
J. Lonsdale     representing Ecodetectives
C. Stark        (unconfirmed)representing Tusk Force
S. Trent        representing Tusk Force