• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

GLAAD grades the networks

Temis the Vorta

Temis the Vorta

Fleet Admiral
Admiral
No great surprises. HBO wins, CBS never heard of them thar "gays." :rommie:

NBC showed a small increase (from 6% to 8% LGBT representation) but still earned a "failing" grade. In addition to a regular character on midseason drama "Southland," which is returning this fall, the network is adding a lesbian storyline to flagship drama "Heroes" next season.
Click to expand...
Oh please, that cynical lipstick lesbian routine they're pulling should earn them negative points. :rolleyes: I'll be charitable because the ratings are making them desperate...

A&E, Sci Fi and TBS received grades of "failing." Sci-Fi is prepping two new series with lead LGBT characters, "Caprica" and "Stargate Universe."
Click to expand...
Well why not, Skiffy fails in everything. Who's the gay lead character in Caprica? Something about Joe Adama we don't know? And SG:U's resident lesbian doesn't strike me as anything close to being a "lead." They're still too cowardly to depict a major gay male character, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

So do organizations do this for, say, blacks and Hispanics?
 
Yeah, I was so hoping for McKay/Beckett to happen in the end... Wishful thinking.

Joy
 
Are they kidding? networks now get graded depending on how many GLBT people are on a show?:wtf: What happens if a network dosen't have any? get a fine or something?
 
This is almost as stupid as parent watchdog groups grading TV shows on what is "good TV" and "bad TV".
 
When SeaQuest was on, did PETA give a good grade to NBC for its positive portrayal of sea kittens?
 
Broccoli said:
This is almost as stupid as parent watchdog groups grading TV shows on what is "good TV" and "bad TV".
Click to expand...

There is no "almost" about it. This is as stupid as those family groups. What, as if there's supposed to be some sort of quota? No wonder those crazy-ass conservative groups are always talking about GLBT being shoved down their throats; in this case they're actually right. All this does if add fuel to the fire and it pains me to see an organization like GLAAD resort to such nonsense.

Like anything else, a character's nationality, gender, sexual orientation, etc. should just be one aspect of the character, not what defines them. If you do all you get are cut-out stereotypes. Characters are there to serve the story, not special interest groups. I can see it now:

Head Writer: "Ok, so we've got our white guy, a black guy, our asian female, their gay best friend... shit, we're forgetting someone aren't we?"
Writer 1: "We still haven't cast an Austrailian aboriginee."
Head Writer: "Son of a bitch, I knew it! I dunno, make him the annoying neighbor."
 
Messianni said:
Broccoli said:
This is almost as stupid as parent watchdog groups grading TV shows on what is "good TV" and "bad TV".
Click to expand...

There is no "almost" about it. This is as stupid as those family groups. What, as if there's supposed to be some sort of quota? No wonder those crazy-ass conservative groups are always talking about GLBT being shoved down their throats; in this case they're actually right. All this does if add fuel to the fire and it pains me to see an organization like GLAAD resort to such nonsense.
Click to expand...

I find GLAAD to be mostly useless, even more so than the HRC (which is saying something), but I have to disagree with you guys on this.

The single most important factor in changing people's opinions on gay rights is exposure to gay people. Finding out you know someone who's gay.

And many people get the courage to come out once they see others like themselves (either in person or in entertainment). I don't think I would blink during episodes of The Real World that showed real gay people who were -mostly- normal. I'd never seen anything like it in real life. It means so very much to see someone like you when you never have before. And seeing representations of people like me didn't make me gay, but they certainly helped me be honest with other people about it.

And this report is more about rewarding stations and shows that have positive coverage than punishing those that don't. From GLAAD's release:

“This year programming was not only inclusive of LGBT people, but networks like HBO are beginning to reflect the broad diversity within our community,” said Rashad Robinson, Senior Director of Media Programs at GLAAD. “With upcoming fall programming and new storylines there is a tremendous opportunity for networks to share the stories of all members of our community including lesbian, bisexual and transgender people as well as LGBT people of color, all groups which continue to be underrepresented across all networks.”
Click to expand...

There are real civil rights at stake here. I doubt this report will make networks more likely to include gay characters, but it can't hurt.
 
Most of the minority lobbies do this, so it's not like it's a new thing.

You can find surveys of Hispanic/Latino actors on TV, Black actors on TV and Asian actors on TV. It's an easy way to get a news hit... like a genre website doing something like "Top Ten SciFi Male Leads" or whatever.
 
Since sci-fi appears to be merely one small part of the albeit entertaining subject, GTVM is probably a more apt forum.
 
A lot of organizations rate shows based on their particular interests. I think there's an organization that rates shows based on how ignorant they are about science. :D
 
Someone should create a new organization--say, the OPJD (Organization for the Promotion of Jiggly Documentaries). Then this group can give a high mark to the History Channel for the new 2-hour special Sex In '69: Sexual Revolution In America.
 
All these special interest groups mean well but sometimes I wonder how much harm they actually do to their own image. If they start trying to promote their own agenda then when does it stop? Does it count if the writers combine them? A gay black female president with a child married to a transgender asian?

If a group wants to have their community (sounds better than "their people/lifestyle") represented then I'm sure there is a less judging way (in this case, literally) to get that achieved. Approach the writers or the people in charge directly instead of this thinly veiled ploy to shame them into it. That is how it comes off to me; as an attempt to shame or embarass them into it.

I think having a more direct contact with the people who are actually creating the characters is a more effective use of time and effort than this showy way of doing it that probably causes more resentment and misunderstanding about their goal than it does accomplish them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top