Thanks to characters like a line cook who’s addicted to vampire blood, HBO is getting the nod as the most gay-friendly network. Not near the top? CBS and NBC.
The annual Network Responsibility Index from the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation looks at positive representations of GLBTs on the small screen. Not surprisingly, it gave ABC good marks for including gays on basically every show on the network: Brothers & Sisters, Ugly Betty, and Grey’s Anatomy. But on NBC, a network whose taste varies from The Office to I’m A Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here, the homos weren’t representing.
Interestingly, Fox got a boost from two characters on House and Bones — who are bisexual. Love our Bs, but whenever networks go bi, it always strikes us as a ratings stunt to generate interest from male audiences than anything else.
HBO, which earns a reported $1.2 billion a year in profit, obviously doesn’t have the same restrictions many networks have on playing to the lowest common denominator, since it generates much of its revenue from subscriber fees (as well as cable operator carrier fees). Same goes for Showtime, which also earned decent marks, thanks to plenty of gay action on shows like United States of Tara.
Our most interesting find among all the data? Lifetime, a network built for women and gay men, and MTV, a network built for young folks assumed to be more progressive than most, scored among the lowest of the ten cable networks analyzed. If it weren’t for the gays and trans on The Real World, we’d be stuck with a teen network running on fumes with The Hills — the most buzz-worthy show in recent memory that didn’t include a single queer.
(Download the full report here; PDF)
Homosexuals are such attention whores.
Why should TV companies be interested in competing for a minority audience such as homosexuals, who supposedly constitute less than 10% of the population?
And how can homosexuals continually bleat about their misfortunes when they receive such open pandering and special privileges?
I don’t see any special awards for TV shows that strive to create “positive representations” of left-handed or red-headed people, the elderly, the handicapped, nor a 1,000 other categories of minority.
@Jon B: Jon that was a clumsy dodge.
Why are you homosexuals so hostile and hateful?
I thought you were always trying to convince the rest of us that you really aren’t all that different.
Well apart from that one weird aspect of your behaviour.
@TANK: Thanks for your intelligent, well thought out response.
You are a credit to homosexuals everywhere and do a great job of perpetuating their negative, hate-filled stereotype
@Landon Bryce: Landon I think it’s time homosexuals got to hear the other side of the story instead of wallowing in each other’s self-pity
@Landon Bryce: But there you go again wallowing in self-pity.
I don’t hate you. Nor do I see why we need to give homosexuals special treatment.
If we have to have awards I’d much prefer to see TV awards to people who truly deserve them.
How about awards for nurses, first responders, care-givers, cancer victims, ex-military?
You guys spend all your time bleating about how victimised you are instead of realising how fortunate you are.
@Wiliam: I wasn’t only talking about the homosexuals who happen to read this blog I was asking why the need for TV companies to pay special attention to such a tiny minority – between 2 & 4% according to you.
Isn’t the message that homosexuals are really no different from anyone else- apart from who they choose to have sex with?
If so why do you pretend that “The mainstream media IS the other side of the story to us”?
Is there really nothing at all in the mainstream media that includes you?
Or is it yet another example of homosexuals pleading for sympathy and wallowing in self-pity and assumed victimhood?
@MackMike: Thanks for the essay.
So what if heterosexuals get more “portrayals” than homosexuals on TV?
Since when did TV companies and film studios have a duty to represent every minority exactly equally?