A British reality show sends the participants to the United Kingdom on migration routes. That should open your eyes, says the station. But how do the experiences work on the participants – and the spectators?
“I would lay landmines and chase every boat filled with migrants that approaches this beach.” At the beginning of the reality show “Go Back to Where You Came from”, Dave introduces itself as a participant from the public service television station Channel Four. Migrants are like vermin, he adds.
The concept of the four -part series is simple – too simple, some critics say. A total of six British, including four opponents of migration, are divided into two groups. One group travels to Somalia, the other to Syria. The teams have to go through the Lebanon and Kenya to Lampedusa, from there to France and back over the English Channel.
The reality of migrants on the way to Great Britain is much harder – you risk your life until the crossing over the English Channel.
How the broadcaster sells the concept
“Will this eye -opening journey be able to move the hearts and opinions of the participants?” Asks Channel Four. At first it doesn't seem that way. In Mogadischu, someone has to clean up, says participant Nathan. And the Syrians should rather rebuild Rakka instead of culving social money in Great Britain, Chloe thinks.
Everything half as wild in this state -drawn and armed countries, it sounds. The migrants are to blame for their situation. There is no voice on site that adjusts this with facts.
Media scientist Anamik Saha from the University of Leeds criticizes this: “There is a lack of history, context, simply facts.” Instead, the show focuses on human fates.
Rarely heard voices
On their trip, the British meet people who have lost everything in the war, live in ruins or in tents in refugee camps. People who still share their food with the British guests and offer them protection.
Saha praises that these real refugees can have their say on British television, even to tell their stories: “We don't hear these voices in the media. Only politicians and the British public are usually migration.” And the media scientist says.
Criticism by NGOS
Nevertheless, refugee organizations have been angry about the reality show. NGO IMIX employees, who are committed to more representation of refugees in British media, watched the series together with asylum seekers.
“Everyone agreed that it was right to produce the show,” says managing director Jenni Regan. “But the focus was too on the British. To see a real escape would have brought more.”
Because of course the participants have security guards with them, carry bullied wests, travel to cars with chauffeurs and armored glass. Regan finds it paradoxical that an artificial escape of all things makes the phenomenon for viewers understandable: “Experience only became real for many when they saw people like themselves.”
Unexpected experiences
One of the biggest problems of the participants is that they become seasick on the inflatable boat or disgust themselves with makeshift toilets. But the further you travel, the more empathy you feel – and the more radically you change your settings.
Suddenly they feel absurd that the French police at nightly raid the inflatable boats of the refugees. Or that James from the Congo, who lives with his family in a forest on the French coast and likes to read English books, simply does not create the crossing.
“I am ashamed of it as I thought,” said participant Jess to James. “You should have had my chances in life. If I could, I would smuggle you to Great Britain.” In the end, refugee James has to comfort the Welsh woman: “This is how life is.”
A transmitter with problems
Channel Four is known for controversial reality shows. The broadcaster took over the concept for “Go Back to Where You Came from” from Australia. The show was well received there.
But Channel Four, who is under public law, but has to finance himself privately, is in the crisis, says Saha. On the one hand, he had to cover complex topics, on the other hand, keep spectators on the shelf, especially the young, urban audience.
The broadcaster competes with social networks, YouTube and streaming services. “That is why the series is presented in such a sensational lust. It is a desperate attempt to get attention,” says Saha.
Sobering Switching rates?
However, the boulevard newspaper The Sun reports about sobering numbers of spectators. The first episode had followed almost a million, more than a third less in the last episode. There will be no second season.
Saha fears that it is above all the effective title and the provocative moments that spectators are remembered, not the fate of the real refugees. The NGO IMIX suspects that the series has just reached viewers with its charmelessness who would otherwise only deal with the topic of flight to a limited extent.
At least the participants convinced their trip. Dave, who initially wanted to blow up refugee boats, praised to invite migrants to the pub, on a pint beer, foot and chips. When it comes to him, be welcome in Great Britain.
