C4 marketing of controversial programme purely about chasing ratings?

It was the most talked about programme of the week – or at least the one many newspaper journalists devoted large amounts of space to.

Go Back to Where You Came From took a group who were hostile towards asylum seekers and attempted to show them just what refugees were attempting to escape from.

To say this programme has divided opinion would be an understatement.

To critics, it is simply irresponsible and even dangerous – a platform for some with highly offensive views.

Others would argue it is actually an attempt to challenge those views and engage people who might not watch a conventional documentary.

There are sincerely held views on both sides of this argument.

In some respects, this programme is a reminder of the glory days of Channel 4 – days when the channel would often show provocative and controversial content.

Inevitably lines were sometimes crossed but you don’t always know where a line is until it is crossed.

But in the glory days of Channel 4, there were two important checks and balances to edgy content.

First of all, Channel 4’s announcers did a great job guiding viewers through a diverse schedule.

Thoughtful intros to programmes helped set the scene and played a part in ensuring viewers understood what a programme was trying to achieve.

When complaints came in, they were sometimes from people who had switched on half way through or who had no interest in what the programme actually set out to do.

However on Monday, the announcer’s intro to Go Back to Where You Came From correctly flagged up all the compliance issues with the programme (strong language, offensive views etc) but did little to set the context for it.

Provocative on air promotions – which included offensive views – did not help either.

Announcers and promotions need to be about more than marketing when they are dealing with disturbing and controversial content.

Similarly, if part of the point of this programme is to provoke debate then the channel should find a forum for the discussion.

For many years C4 did just that. Right to Reply and The Television Show were designed to give viewers a chance to debate and discuss the substance of programmes and creative decisions.

Worse, modern C4 often seems just like any other commercial channel.

So it is easy to imagine that all its output is simply designed to maximise ratings and get the best possible return.

When privatisation seemed likely, I discussed how relatively little of modern C4 is truly distinctive – much can either seem mainstream, derivative or simply puerile.

This can make it harder to spot when a programme aspires to some other purpose.

Of course, the aspirations of a programme are one thing – whether it succeeds is another.

With any provocative output, viewers’ opinions will inevitably be split.

C4 historically showed great respect for its viewers. Their views were represented on air and they were allowed to talk to programme makers as equals.

This is why some once held C4 in such high regard. It was possible to respect a channel which commissioned a programme you took exception to if that channel also accepted that the views of critics were just as valid as the opinions of supporters.

With no forum for debate nowadays, it is easy to assume the worth of a programme is only about its ratings or the ad revenue brought in.

Time for C4 to think about just what its announcers should be saying and to reflect on its corporate marketing.

Acknowledgements