(from "Cultural Bias and Prime Time Telelvision", Pg.175)
Sexual Orientation
1) The only remarkable presence of anyone in the LGBT community was in Will
& Grace, which marked homosexuals, particularly gay men as a foil for ridicule and
hyper-sexualization without giving them the respect of portrayals that showed true loving
relationships, physical or emotional, implicit or explicit.
The absence of portrayals of the LGBT community was troubling, but not
surprising given the supporting research available on the invisibility of this population in
prime time television. Hall reported, though, on one prime time program that regularly
raises LGBT issues in its narratives - The Simpsons, one of the longest-running prime
time animated programs in history. Hall asserted that The Simpsons, with its unique style
in thumbing its nose at the status quo, brought LGBT issues into the living rooms of the
United States of America through a number of characters and narratives, including one of
the lead characters, Homer Simpson. Hall claimed that Homer questioned our delineation
of what and who is homosexual or heterosexual as Homer reportedly was “‘flattered and
intrigued’ when he thinks his ancient and shriveled boss, Mr. Burns is making a pass at
him...kisses his secretary Carl (voice of Harvey Fierstein) on the lips” (Hall, 1997, ¶ 12)
and “who sighs breathlessly one day ‘Ah, Oliver North, he was just poured into that
uniform’” (ibid). None of the programs in this study were as brave or creative. On the
contrary, That 70’s Show almost ruthlessly upheld the banner of macho, heterosexism at
every turn, punctuated by Red, frustrated, exclaiming to Fez with disdain, “You are one
fruity kid” (Program Sample 02/#6).
Jones, in an interview with Stephen Tropiano, author of The Prime Time Closet:
A History of Gays and Lesbians on TV, said, “A few seasons ago you couldn’t swing a
small yappy dog without hitting a regular or recurring gay character” (2002, ¶ 1). The
situation had changed drastically by the time the 2002-2003 season previews were ready
for review. The networks made decisions to maximize their embrace of the middle-(U.S.
of)American suburbia in its new shows, creating “a universe that writers and producers
aren’t so quick to put gay characters into” (Jones, 2002, ¶ 3). Tropiano claimed, “it all
comes down to economics. They’re trying to boost their ratings and make money” (as
cited in Jones, 2002, ¶ 5). The bottom line remained that corporate conglomerates were
making decisions that continued to segregate and balkanize audiences and prevented the
cross-cultural, cross-sub-cultural content and meaning presentation and exchange that
marked times of better patterns of diversity in television programming. There were scant
and negative portrayals of the LGBT community and its needs, realities and issues in
prime time programming for aspirational teenage viewers to learn from or, at the very
least, to become tolerant of.
An article published online by the American Family Association pointed out a
troubling perspective on the reality of the LGBT community on television with worse
implicit outcomes for the LGBT community in society. Sharp, AFA Special Projects
Director wrote that “prime-time television controls the moral climate of our nation”
(n.d.). Sharp went on to say the following:
“In 1985, when gay characters in prime-time television were infrequent, only 40% of Americans felt comfortable around homosexuals. Today, that figure has risen to 60% and by all indications, Hollywood wants those numbers to increase. The most influential market for promoting the homosexual agenda is clearlytelevision. Between 1989 and 1999, references to homosexuality during prime-time television increased an amazing 2,650%!” (n.d.)
Sharp’s assertions, though unsupported by research in the document raised a few
essential concerns pursuant to this study’s findings. First, research supports that gay and
lesbian characters were quite prevalent in the 80’s (Sender, 1998), though the depth of
their characters may not have been equal to some that showed up in cable productions, in
particular The L Word, seen on Showtime. Second, Hollywood, if the term can be used to represent television programmers, was more than happy to exclude any substantive
presence of LGBT sub-culture in prime time broadcast television, at least in the recent
past, with regard to this study’s findings. Third, it was not known if Sharp codified all
references to homosexuality, positive and negative, which would have inflated the
quantitative results, but decreased the qualitative result of his assertion that Hollywood
was indeed supportive of a ‘gay America’. Fourth, Sharp insinuated some collusion with
the “recruitment” theorists who believed heterosexuals could be ‘convinced’ to become
homosexual through nurture methods as the corollary, nature, might have been
unthinkable. Fifth, any reputable writer with the audacity to report a number as high as
2,650% (complete with exclamation point) should have been willing to cite the source of
their mathematics. Sixth, this researcher agreed with Sharp in the implied statement that
the new LGBT-focused cable channel, Logo (Viacom), might not be a good thing in
general. It will be a definite and positive addition to the LGBT community as long as
Viacom allows the narratives to be created by LGBT writers and producers so as to
sustain realistic portrayals and decrease the negativities of stereotypes. That said, if
current trends of segregated viewing continue, the larger society’s ability to learn from
the LGBT community’s narratives and stories will be gravely curtailed.
Huntemann and Morgan asserted:
“Few groups in society experience such strong tensions over sexuality as gay and lesbian teens do. In a cultural climate that is still largely hostile to homosexuality, the paucity of positive role models in the media is disturbing.” (2001, p. 315)Past representations of gay, lesbian and bisexual characters could be seen in programs such as Roseanne, Golden Girls, Picket Fences and Soap (Sender, 1998).
These prime time portrayals have been few and far between since, with bright spots and
dim dispersed throughout. The children polled in the Children Now study said it was
important to see images of people who look like them on television (1998). The lesbian,
gay, bisexual and transgender teenagers, no less aspirational in their viewing behaviors,
no less important in their need for personal self-esteem and social validation, might have
also thought it was important to see images of people that looked, lived and loved like
them on television.
No comments:
Post a Comment