SBS goes celebrities over substance on asylum seekers

Well said Tim . . .that bickering spoils it for me too instead of focusing on the victims. It's the same as the politicians in the House - bickering instead of doing something about the situation. Looking forward to the next chapter and Insight on Friday night. Thanks again Tim

disagree entirely with this analysis of the current sbs tv show. this may be true for experts in the field but for us ordinary people at home, it is very illuminating and informative. you can see the humanity in all the participants and it helps to illustrate the massive nature of the problem and the reality that unless there is action at a global level to address the horrors of life for so many poor refugees, this situation will not be easily solved. i admire the guts and fortitude of all the people who took part. it is easy to be a smug armchair critic, it is admirable to have a go.

This is so disappointing, especially here, in Eureka Street. You say, 'It's hard to escape the view this is a cynical exercise on the part of SBS and the show's production company, Cordell Jigsaw.' You might be amazed then to learn that I HAVE escaped it, along with many thousands of others. You object to the fact that the participants are all well-known people, and you can offer no other reason for this than ratings. But while that strong ratings have been a result, a result is not the same as a goal. The goal of this series is clearly to get us all thinking about the issues - for some of us to change our minds and for some of us to deepen our understanding, and become more articulate, motivated and committed. And what better way than to show these six well-known people in most uncomfortable situations, being forced to confront the facts? It is particularly powerful to see the three 'rednecks' still trying to justify their positions at the end of the second programmes, but with less and less assurance. These are influential people. It makes sense to involve them. If their attitudes can change, they can, in turn, influence huge numbers of Australians. By the same token, the three 'bleeding hearts' are becoming better informed, and perhaps will emerge from the experience able to communicate more compellingly.

I watched the first episode last night, found it fascinating. I'd love to see us do a show like this in the States. I would say, at too many times the program seemed designed to make Peter Reith look bad. I hope the second and third episodes are a bit more organic; the situation is confronting enough in and of itself.

I am not sure I see the clear distinction between series 1 and 2 that is trying to be made here. In last year's 'Go Back' I saw a great deal of conflict and drama, as well as powerful dynamics firing between participants. Albeit through the actions and behaviours of 'ordinary' people. Its all good 'Reality TV'.

I understand your concerns but still think this is rivetting, thought provoking TV. I hope it stimulates continuing public debate that gets into the issues of why people see asylum as their only route and getting on boats their only means of travelling it. In other words lets confront the front end of the problem rather than ranting out how unfair to us it is to have 'illegals' on boats at the back end. Asylum seekers deserve better; and we can be better than the way we have presented ourselves on this matter so far.

I didn't even notice the so-called stars. I and most others are more interested in the people themselves. Like did we hear anyone threaten to abuse the Somali's who could get a cart to Ethiopia because they had an advantage over those who had to walk? Or were they abused because they left and had the advantage of a tent in safety instead of being left in Mogadishu. The little girl who didn't die in the mosque bombing would be sent to Nauru as a queue jumping advantaged criminal if she got here. The orphan Michael Smith was smitten with would be sent to Nauru and demonised asa queue jumping advantaged refugee. Do Australian's even realise how stupid we are. People too lazy to wait 5 seconds in a shopping line?

On the contrary one can see the negative stances changing.

Peter Reith called refugees people, what a shame he didn't do that when he demonised them as parents who chucked babies overboard.

it is a real shame the opportunity wasnt taken to facilitate the discussion. The natural response to aggression is defence. we hit back or run or just build walls. I just wondered how Peter integrated his decision-making of a dozen years ago with his experience in Kabul. His struggle could be seen. it can't be easy for someone to make a decision from the safety of the Canberra bunker to experience the reality of what that means for those sent back to live or die in a place that day to day is still an uncertain hell on earth. I was just saddened that what i experienced as Catherine's judging questioning left Peter the poli no where to go. I wanted to know about the man who felt terror in Kabul. As i write I am thinking back to a time many years ago when i was state manager of a company. I was given a job to cut numbers. I made a decision between two employees...one was to be retrenched ...I chose one to stay and one to go. A month later the one chosen for retrenchment dead from a stress related heart attack.....And I know i made a wrong decision one I regret. I have little doubt as Peter stood there in Kabul he was remembering his decisions. I would like to have known a little more of that...there were other moments..like comments on decisions and the Australian voting public which could have been picked up...what was happening for him then in that moment as he remembered with new awareness of the truth.

It seems superficial to object to the celebrity status of the participants when so much that fills TV screens is celebrity focussed. This series nicely complements the first series focussed on responses of "ordinary" Australians. For one person to be emotionally overwhelmed and another to be aggressively critical is within the range of responses we hear from friends. I found the program confronting and challenging. How can I respond to such desperate people? What policy actions from our government could be humane and realistic in face of such human suffering and the tragic extent of the problems? The arguments of the six people who had the courage to look at the situation ring true.

I still agree that it's hard to escape the typical shock tactics of reality TV ploys - and when I watch the last series, I was more concerned about how well the reality was being presented, and how much was influenced by the fact there were cameras being poked into vulnerable people's faces, and they were being forced to tolerate a group of poverty tourists looking for a karma kick. And I disagree that these celebrities are influential in the current situation - they are all "former" ministers, etc, although I accept it would be unlikely for someone currently in a position of influence to volunteer for such a circus.

I have to disagree with you Tim. I thought the mix of people was brilliant – from opinion shapers to policy makers. I was initially dubious about the inclusion of Imogen Bailey, but found she represented the voice of young people who genuinely want to understand how we have come to the point we have. Her gently questioning was in stark contrast to the dogmatic, intractable views of both Smith and Deveny. Perhaps the most fascinating person for me was Angry Anderson. He completely shocked me at the start with his talk of ‘cattle trucks’, but as time went on it was what he didn’t say that spoke volumes. I felt we were watching a man in the middle of an epiphany, unable to find words for his realisation. I know from personal experience this has reinvigorated the conversation among the next generation of voters, which surely can only be a good thing.

After watching the discussion on SBS's Insight forum last night with the participants in said doco, it's clear that Reith and the radio shock jock haven't budged an inch in their attitudes and behaved like consummate politicians with a selfish agenda. I felt sickened and angry, and felt myself swearing at my television (I was watching alone). At the end, the whole cynical exercise made me feel that Australia is losing the plot.

Tim, the bickering you speak of took place amid the ever visible reality of people searching for a way out of their suffering in the face of the harshnes of the people they were with and the people with whom they sought refuge. I felt the negativity of your article was less helpful than the 'reality TV' it criticised.

Regardless of who the "players" were in Series 2, it was a sober reminder of the massive crisis facing not just Australia, but most of the Western World."The Head in the Sand "approach of both major parties is so depressing.We are so very lucky and its purely by accident of birth that we are not in the same situation!

Crisis for Australia and the Western World? What about the crisis for the "other world". The bickering we may have to put up with is merely an annoyance compared to the harsh reality faced by the majority of the world's population - and it doesn't finish for them when the credits start rolling.

I did not see any reverse racism anywhere in this program