un-graffiti and a small measurement of truth?

In a tv show/spectacle called “homeland”(??), some people were asked to do stuff that Looks like graffiti, so that scenes will look “authentic”.
One, or a few, of these people being asked to add the authentic feel, decided to tell a bit of a possible truth about the show, marking it as a racist spectacle.
Does this inner truth expression make the graffiti marks authentic?
Graffiti marking, image making, is a part of an operation, a practice that includes, in my view, an appropriation of in-appropriated public space. The act of marking in that area questions the sense of public as a part of being a graffiti rather than a mural, or other kinds of images and markings in the public space.
I also think that the challenge of communal ownership in the act of graffiti making, marks the activity as having its own character.
For example, in Brighton, the council allows certain image makers to do graffiti looking-like imagery in particular spots. They call it graffiti, and use it to sell Brighton as having a certain vibe of freedom in public spaces. A vibe Brighton actually does not have. A bit like a Disney “land” the publicly available areas are predesignated to preconceived activities. Hence these times of being in public are controlled and based on power rather than imagination and freedom to wonder from the known into the possible failure.

With the above in mind, am questioning the truth telling in the markings on the tv show. Sure, its an interesting hack based on the very premise of racism because if it was written in a language understood by the homeland show controllers, they might have marked it off. Perhaps the fact they didn’t bother to check what was written, is a certain prejudice towards the kind of statements an arabic writer might come up with?

Perhaps it might be interesting in this example to check the interplay between hacking and graffiti?