TV viewers are at odds over a new reality show that sees six Brits trying to navigate perilous migrant routes to the UK from war-torn Syria and Somalia. The blurb for Channel 4's "Go Back to Where You Came From" asks if the "eye-opening" journey will "change hearts and minds", said Anita Singh in The Telegraph. "I haven't seen the whole series, but I'll wager that the answer is no."

'Get your back up'
"Who else but Channel 4 would commission a reality 'experiment' about immigration and title it with that old xenophobic phrase, 'Go Back to Where You Came From'?" asked Gerard Gilbert in The i Paper. This series is clearly designed to "get your back up" from the start, said Abha Shah in London's The Standard. Once we're introduced to the participants, it becomes clear that "I'm a Bigot, Get Me Out of Here!" would have been a "far more fitting" title.

"What was Channel 4 thinking?" asked Carol Midgely in The Times. The "very complex subject" of immigration is treated "with all the sophistication of a custard pie to the face". A programme like this should feature "the shades of grey people" who are worried about immigration, but still "feel compassion". Instead, the broadcaster has selected these participants "precisely because they may create a ruckus on social media".

'Rare insights'
The "backlash" to this series seems to miss a vital question, said charity director Gareth Benest in The Guardian: "if this was an educational documentary, would anyone watch it?" Even if it would be better to "hear the voices of people with direct experience" of immigration, "contentious issues" like these require "alternative formats to find a mass audience" or run the risk of being forgotten entirely.

Yet the show can be applauded for offering "rare insights into the terrible plight of millions of poor and displaced people", said Gilbert in The i Paper. And while it is, at times, "uncomfortably voyeuristic", said Benest, "I'm glad it was made" if it can "shed light" on a spiralling crisis in a "primetime slot".

Donald Trump has cast a spotlight on South Africa by speaking out against the government's new land reform policies. The US president threatened to cut off funding to the African nation pending a "full investigation" into the Expropriation Act, which came into effect last month.

Why has Trump claimed?
In posts on social media media, Trump accused South Africa of embarking on "land grabs" against "certain classes of people". And he told reporters that the government was "confiscating land" and "doing things that are perhaps far worse than that".

Trump's remarks appear to refer to the "far-right cause celebre" of the white minority in South Africa, who they claim are being "marginalised" and "subjected to 'genocide'", said Sky News. Elon Musk has previously accused left-wing party leaders of "openly pushing for genocide of white people", and called the land reform policy "openly racist".

What has the South African government said?
President Cyril Ramaphosa has defended the Expropriation Act, saying it would "balance the need for public usage of land and the protection of the rights of property owners". He vehemently denied that the policy targets white landowners, as Trump had insinuated.

In a statement on X, Ramaphosa said the new law was not a "confiscation instrument" but rather a "constitutionally mandated legal process" that other countries, including the US, also use to ensure there is "access to land in an equitable and just manner".

What's the truth?
The Expropriation Act makes no mention of race and there is no evidence of it being used specifically to target white landowners. But the most recent census suggests South Africa's 7% white population owns 70% of all "privately owned farmland in the country", said Al Jazeera. These "ongoing disparities in land ownership" are why the government has sought to find ways to create a "more equitable distribution of land", and why right-wing commentators claim the policy is racially targeted.

Previous policies aimed at reducing the disparity of land ownership have "not been used effectively", said law professor Zsa-Zsa Temmers Boggenpoel on The Conversation. And sceptics like myself are "not convinced" that the Expropriation Act is a "silver bullet to effect large-scale land reform".

"The opening is dazzling", said Sarah Crompton on What'sOnStage. "A chant of Oedipus. A man trapped in a smoky shaft of light, unable to escape his destiny. A blackout and dancers emerge from the gloom, pulsing and writhing to the pounding soundtrack…" Then we catch our first glimpse of Oedipus (Rami Malek), dressed in a white suit and "raised on a gleaming stage".

Matthew Warchus and Hofesh Shechter's new production of Sophocles' family tragedy gets off to a "fabulous" start. But while there are "tantalising" flashes of "wonder" along the way, it struggles to sustain the "intensity" set out in those first few moments

It's a "compelling" backdrop, but Malek's portrayal of Oedipus is "baffling", said Andrzej Lukowski in Time Out. The Hollywood star turns the titular character into a "detached, drawling figure". It's a "curiously stilted central performance", agreed Clive Davis in The Times, and I found Ella Hickson's script "lacking in poetic heft". But Christopher Shutt's sound design brings a "ghostly sheen" and Tom Visser's lighting adds "ritualistic intensity". "We can't help being drawn into a harsh, elemental world."

Indira Varma's portrayal of Jocasta (Oedipus' wife) is "full of subtle thought and feeling", said Crompton on What'sOnStage, and the supporting cast is "excellent". In all, while the production is filled with "good ideas and powerful images", it hovers on the surface of "Sophocles' profoundly questing play, never quite piercing to its dark heart".

At the Old Vic Theatre, London, until 29 March

It is time to move the UN and international law out of the West
Shahd Hammouri on Al Jazeera
The "exceptional immunity" that Israel has "enjoyed for decades" has put international law on "a knife's edge", writes legal expert Shahd Hammouri. Israel and America's policies on Gaza "raise questions" about whether the "current global system" led by the UN is "beyond salvation" and "emblematic" of "larger patterns of domination and exploitation". Perhaps the UN should be moved "outside of the US and fortress Europe to somewhere in the Global South".

Britain is lagging behind – it's time to stop holding nuclear energy back
Ed Miliband in the Daily Express
"Britain needs nuclear power as we drive towards a new era of clean electricity," writes Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, but "for too long the potential of this industry has been held back". Government plans to "drive forward" on nuclear power will "boost our energy independence, create jobs and unlock growth". Clean energy is "the route to energy security, lower bills, good jobs and a safe climate for our children and grandchildren", so "we will move fast".

Badenoch must go
Senior Source on The Critic
"She's got to go," writes a senior source from the Tory party. Kemi Badenoch is "ineffectual, irrelevant and out of her depth". People are not "going to warm" to the Tory leader: she has "had 100 days, and her popularity has fallen by 4 points". Her approach "smacks so strongly of an over-promoted middle manager" because "that's what she is". Conservatives like me cannot operate under the "false assumption" that the party "has any right to exist". Preserving it "requires hard work".