Gay Friendly TV

[klunderbunker]

So on Conan the last two nights, in his monologue he's mentioned that both NBC and Sci-FI have been given a failing grade by a gay group for not having enough gay friendly programming. What I want to know are two things: should the networks really care, and does the gay group have a legit complaint?

In my eyes, perhaps, and no. Homosexuals are a large group of people and a large audience, but I don't think that networks should be required to include either gay characters or storylines that are "gay friendly". If they want to then that's fine, but it shouldn't be a requirement. It's not as if anyone is being forced to watch their networks, so why should the be required to air or not air certain kinds of programming?

What are you thoughts on this? Does the gay group have a legit complaint, or should they sit down and be quiet/

 

[My$terio_Fan]

lawls. Sometimes I think us gays are just foolish. Personally I could care less if networks had "gay friendly" programming or characters. It would be one thing if the networks were purposely not having "gay" characters ect, but for a network to pick up a show just because it's gay friendly is pointless, or just adding a gay best friend to the show randomly just to have a gay character seems random.

I think TV shows should have more gay characters and storylines since this is reality now, and what is going on in America/the world, but I think this is just another pointless arguement by the gay community/

I mean us gays do like shows not involving other gays/gay characters/and "gay" related things. So no the networks shouldn't really be worried, because gays are still going to watch TV.

This is what bothers me about the gay community in general. They are always picking at something. I get they want equall rights and all that jazz(as do I) but their are bigger fish to fry then Sci-Fi not having gay characters(And really why the hell would we be watching that lame network anyways).

 

[TheOneBigWill]

Just out of curiosity, what the hell is "Gay friendly" television? Are they expecting a Friends spin-off, with just Joey, Chandler and Ross when all of them come out of the closet? Personally, I always knew Ross was.. how many chances did he have to fuck Rachel, and just constantly with the nit-picking at every little thing. Gosh.

Anyways, seriously.. "Gay friendly", meaning what? More gay-only programming? If this is it, then what the fuck? I mean seriously I'm all for gay rights and equal quality and all that stuff, but there becomes a line that doesn't need to be crossed. It seems every time someone gets an inch, they want a whole fucking mile. Blacks, Women, now Gays and Lesbians.

This is NOT meant to be racist and I wholeheartedly apologize in every sense of the way if it comes out that way.

But seriously, each of those "categories" or "groups" have asked for special treatment. Black people for example, wanted more African Americans in movies and television. And, they got it. Women used to be banned completely from acting back during older times, that has since changed for the better as well. Now, we have Gays and Lesbians, apparently from near as I can tell demanding more television shows based solely off their sexual preference.

Look, the last time I checked the Gay community actually has their own network. I think its called "Logo", and its very similar to BET for Black people, or the Lifetime channel that Women have. It runs 100% all self-grouped programming, without anything from any outside preferences.

The irony here is, White people don't have any type of special channel like that, that contributes to 100% of all self-grouped programming. Why? Because everyone seems to think the "White person" has it all, to begin with. If anyone is racist here, its everyone thats not white. Because the so-called "White person" doesn't actually have anything thats all to themselves.. we share our stuff.

Anyways, I'm trailing from the topic at hand. Gays, Lesbians and more self-grouped television. Do they have a right to complain? Yes and No. Yes, because everyone is entitled to their opinion and they certainly have their rights to voice them.. However, NO, because they have their own fucking network. Its not like we need 100% of the same thing running over every single network, 24/7.

And you can't honestly tell me one or two gay/lesbian characters haven't popped up in selective sitcoms, or movies from time to time. So, to say they have a right to complain is a tad bit much, and from near as I can tell.. its just one more step they're trying to take, to remain in the spotlight and continue gaining attention.

 

[LigerBomb]

I think when it's forced it makes things worse, regardless of medium. One example is the Comic Book writer Judd Winick. For those who may not know, or where too young too remember, he was a cartoonist/comic book writer who was picked to be a part of MTV's The Real World: San Fransisco back in '94. That season of the MTV staple was of particular note as it introduced America to it's first real gay "character", Pedro Zamora, who was at the time living with full blown AIDS. Now it's actually not this show that I had a problem with as I though they handles Pedro and his life and struggles with dignity and humanity without being all that heavy handed and preachy.
What did bother me was what happened after the show stopped taping. Sadly Pedro died not too long after the airing of the final episode. As made clear on the show, many cast members including Judd got very close with and attached to Pedro and they took his lose hard. Once Winick got back to writing comics his own personal experiences and new found awareness of the gay community made him overreact and place gay and/or HIV infected characters everywhere even when they were largely superfluous to the story (worse yet the trend spread to other books within the the industry where writers would take existing characters and "out" them as having always been gay). The second Winck joined the writing team of a book bam! hello new gay character or AIDs "victim", who's voice was always about gay rights, equality, freedom etc etc etc. never really about being a character that added anything to the story or did anything impactful but always trumpeting the"gay agenda" as some would say. It was terrible writing on Winck's part and while he got better over the years it was so blatantly reactionary and hackneyed that it was by and large a distraction. Eventually if you read comics you got the message (and loud and clear I might add) that gay equality was the new "it" topic of the comic book industry.
So returning to TV, I see similar situations occasionally and find it crass and almost exploitive to write gay characters as basic caricatures of themselves who only have one style or mode of interaction, perspective, and voice. I believe it largely misses the point and doesn't really make the show anymore "gay friendly" as it insults the audience's -both gay and straight- intelligence.
From a corporate point of view having a gay group say you need more gays or have to become gay friendly signals to the company A. we need to start attracting that demographic and start getting their money and B. we have to have a good public image to show we support their cause; then you see the results and it's completely obvious and distasteful. For me the gay boom of the early 2000's is very similar to the "going green" movement of the late 2000's. It's the new focus of every company, corporation, network and politician... it's all about cultivating a specific image that invites the audience/voting public/consumer to invest in something, be that investment their money, votes, or in the case of TV and other media ad supported viewership. Because of that I don't see the point of telling a network they aren't gay friendly because the network either won't do anything, or they'll do the above.