I'm really wondering whether we need GLAAD anymore. They've just released their Network Responsibility Index for 2008-09 to "serve as a road map toward increasing fair, accurate and inclusive LGBT media representations." ABC led the pack among networks; of its 1,146.5 total hours of primetime programming, 269.5 hours (24%) included LGBT impressions. The CW came in second with 138 LGBT-inclusive hours, or 20% of its primetime offerings. CBS gave us the back of their hand, devoting only 60 hours -- 5% of its schedule -- to us. For shame.
In 1985, when GLAAD was a startup, this kind of monitoring was not only valuable, but necessary. Back then, the New York Times had a specific editorial policy against use of the word "gay," to describe us. GLAAD is the reason that changed, and they can claim credit for much more. They've helped us change the world.
But now we are in the position where we can complain when one network only shows us five percent of the time -- a number pretty close to our actual percentage in the population. Anyone tuned only to ABC would have had to put up with 269.5 hours of us. How helpful is it, really, that we know, to the decimal point, total network hours, percentages (subdivided by race, as well; Ugly Betty and Desperate Housewives lose serious GLAAD-cred on that point) and year-over-year differentials of GLAAD-approved achievement? Are we studying stuff now, not because we need to, but just because we can?
I don't know how much it cost to do all this monitoring, and slicing and dicing of the data, nor how much was spent to produce the 39-page, very glossy report. But in a world where we have some important and expensive political work to do in (for example) Maine, New York and possibly Washington (and let's not forget California), is this really the best use of $11 million? Do we really need GLAAD as an institution any more? More important, if we ever decided we didn't, would it be possible to get rid of them?
12 Comments for “We’re Here, We’re Queer, We Were on Primetime Network TV 647 Hours Last Year (Not Counting Cable)”
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
No, and no.
posted by TS on
Hmm… I’m thinking about the validity of comparing 5% of on-TV hours with 5% of the population. I don’t think it’s valid.
1.7% of Americans are openly LGBT. That means on a TV show with 100 minor, support or one-episode characters, 1-2 on average should be openly gay, and probably 6-8 more should be thought of as closeted or not open. These figures should also swing quite widely depending on the setting. For example, adults in a big city should have a lot more open LGBTs, versus a small town which might conceivably have zero. Teenagers, on the other hand, should hold about steady in the rates despite setting.
ALSO, with there being, in my estimation, 300-500 major or main characters on TV between the large networks, 5-9 should be openly LGBT. 15-20 more should be thought of as private, not open, or closeted, and because they are main characters, this fact would probably emerge to the viewer.
What GLAAD seeks to do is monitor the quality and quantity of media’s portrayal of us, on the theory that media can influence people’s ideas about the world. If we were portrayed in a just manner (in about equal proportions with the real world, not consistently as fop or antagonist characters), they say it would be a sign of improving social justice as well as help improve social justice.
Capitalism is working against that. The major networks want slices of the big pie, versus the minor networks which gladly cater to special groups of consumers for whom they must compete less vigorously. To get slices of the big pie, you have to create media the normal media consumer is interested in consuming, which is often portrayals of ordinary people with identities similar to their own doing extraordinary things or in extraordinary situations. 25-30% of the normals are conservatives/evangelicals who don’t want to see us at all or want to see us as villains. The rest of the everymen and women wouldn’t mind seeing the equivalent of their fun LGBT friend in the same support role they play in their own lives, but would have trouble identifying with an LGBT main character.
I’m inclined to say GLAAD espouses a less valuable form of activism than fighting for equal legal rights or person-to-person changing of minds. The majors will never have an incentive to portray LGBTs as unique but normal individuals without a bigger and more coherently interested bloc of consumers. Bah, I don’t really know.
disclaimer: all figures in the above are lightly educated guesses.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
I am a member of GLAAD’s theater jury in Los Angeles. I think GLAAD is important, particularly in terms of broadcast and print journalism.
There is disturbing evidence of how organizations like FRC, TVC and Exodus distort the work of credible researchers. Such a thing happened in TIME magazine.
Also, when Newsweek did an article about the murder of Lawrence King, they portrayed him as the aggressor and flamboyant, with the strong implication that King provoked his killer, therefore was partially responsible for his own killing.
To this day, Matt Shepard’s killing is discussed as if he was a drug addict involved in a deal gone bad.
Churches across the country are going WAY beyond basic Scripture and exploiting fear of gay people to the extent of political action that manifests in exclusion from Constitutional protection.
It’s extremely difficult for gays and lesbians to participate in their own defense. When news service or provocative pundits like Bill O’Reilly or Mike Savage shoot off their mouths, gay folks are guaranteed to be in trouble somewhere.
Visibility doesn’t mean it’s over. Rachel Maddow is great to see, we have gadfly’s out there pointing out the needs and intentions of the gay community.
But the voices ARE being overshadowed by those more powerful in the MSM.
Gays and lesbians must become more than entertainment fodder and fictional characters on television.
posted by BobN on
What’s with this “we” stuff?
Have you ever donated money to GLAAD? If you have, you know you weren’t forced to. The cool thing about these organizations, is that one can donate as one chooses.
posted by Peter LaBarbera on
When will the entertainment industry catch up with reality and cast a sympathetic FORMER homosexual character who is content with his sexuality in a major film? The “gay-as-victim” shtick is getting so tiresome.
posted by Rose W. on
I don’t know about GLAAD or many other things…but what I’m waiting for is a science fiction or fantasy film where the main character just happens to be non-het. I’m sick of non-hets as minor characters…and I’m sick of movies about coming out and homophobia. How about some integration?
posted by TS on
Nice try, Peter LaBarbera, but ex-gay likely-delusion is not the normal alternative to victimistic coming-out stories in media. The spectrum goes [[Victimism – – – – – – self-acceptance and stable placement in society]], not [[Victimism – – – – – – – escape from victimism by denying reality]].
Look, I’m not going to tell you what you are or aren’t or what works in your own life. But I think most people who are honest with themselves are reasonably confident that their sexual orientations cannot be wilfully changed. And when you tell anyone, gays, media companies, churches, whoever, that “change is possible” and it’s the moral course of action, don’t be surprised to encounter heavy skepticism.
If you want media portraying confident, likeable, non-pathetic ex-gay characters, write your favorite network or establish an activist group of your own- an “anti-GLAAD” or something. In the unlikely event that you can find a million people who want to consume media featuring ex-gays, maybe then you’ll be able to persuade some capitalists that it’s worth it.
posted by BobN on
When will the entertainment industry catch up with reality and cast a sympathetic FORMER homosexual character who is content with his sexuality
Surely CSPAN coverage of the GOP Caucus counts, at least sometimes….
posted by Robert on
“When will the entertainment industry catch up with reality and cast a sympathetic FORMER homosexual character who is content with his sexuality in a major film?”
—Let the Christian stations deal with that garbage. And by the way, if gays can go straight, how come they always marry ex-lesbians?
posted by Pat on
When will the entertainment industry catch up with reality and cast a sympathetic FORMER homosexual character who is content with his sexuality in a major film?
You’ve got a point there, Mr. LaBarbera. TV sometimes airs fantasies, or other things that do not exist. So perhaps it is time to depict your latest fantasy on TV.
posted by BobN on
When will the entertainment industry catch up with reality and cast a sympathetic FORMER homosexual character who is content with his sexuality in a major film?
Uh… what about all the female characters who “went through a phase” in college? That’s pretty stock character history, isn’t it?
You need to watch more TV, Peter.
posted by Mark on
“But now we are in the position where we can complain when one network only shows us five percent of the time — a number pretty close to our actual percentage in the population.”
I agree with the first comment. The above quote is the stupidest line in the post. A minority group of 5% of the population that is randomly dispersed among sex, age and race should statistically “show up” in television ensembles quite often.
As Harvey Milk stated years ago, invisibility is the gay community’s greatest obstacle.