Gays in Primetime -- A Special Investigative Report: Part I

I do wonder sometimes if the number of scripted gay characters on TV has been negatively impacted by the number of real gays on TV.

Network TV overall is now only a piece of the whole deal with an ever-growing number of cable channels out there.  And there are times when it feels like it's impossible to turn on HGTV without immediately having a gay person pop up onscreen.

On networks and cable, reality TV and various "real life" shows have become ever more prevalent.  Even setting aside big RTV programs like American Idol, a growing number of people seem to be tuning their TV's to cooking shows, home makeover shows, human makeover shows and shows about screaming tweens forced to live in a house together.  In most of those venues we are, in fact, surprisingly well-represented.

Which leaves us with the question of scripted TV.  Now, I do want to point out right up front that every one of the interviewee's in this article probably has a background in marketing.  You must therefore apply a healthy dose of cyncism to everything they say.

Even so, I'd love to see an analysis of how the decline in scripted versus reality correlates to the decline in gay scripted characters over the last decade.

That said, I do suspect that corporate culture is an issue here no matter what anyone says.   ABC is out in the lead simply because they choose to be.  They have made it a point to put a lot of gay characters onscreen.  The other networks could unquestionably do the same if they chose, although as yet they haven't chosen.

I suspect that for all their bravado they're still moving cautiously.  We're not the only minority group complaining about under-representation on network TV after all.  Blacks and Latinos have been raising similar complaints.  And a few years ago there was a standing issue about a sharp drop in over-30 people on network as well.  It took a couple of years before that one turned around and the networks discovered that, in fact, not everyone only wants to look at 20-somethings on TV.

Personally I'm inclined to believe that they are, in fact, deflecting.  I'm quite sure a substantial number of gay characters are ending up in the paper shredder.  Middle America is still a key audience.

Indeed, I would suggest that this fact probably contributes to the lack of out gays on American Idol.   In any show where audience voting plays a big role in the outcome many gay contestants themselves may, being mindful that in a competitive environment every vote counts, opt not to be open simply because they fear it may cost them Middle America votes or see those votes transferred to a straight contestant.

All-in-all the whole situation is not satisfactory and I think we need to a) make sure we show support for shows like Brothers & Sisters and Ugly Betty,  b) not be shy about not supporting networks we don't feel support us.  It's not as if there's not other channels on cable we can't go to looking for gay-oriented entertainment.  Sometimes I think that networks need to be reminded that just like every other target demographic they are in a competition for our viewership.  It is not automatic. 

I know this question misses the point of the article (which is very enlightening, thank you!), but I had read somewhere earlier this year that J. Alexander had stated that he was not gay. I thought it might be a hoax, but who knows. I was just wondering if there are any interviews in which he mentions that he is gay?

I'm proud to be a cynic, and, sure enough, a lot of what these execs are saying strikes me as just pretty talk to cover some pretty awful track records (ABC Entertainment excluded, ABC's news division, not). This quote, for instance sounds really disingenuous:

"Reilly said the last time he was confronted with issues of this kind was six years ago as president of F/X when Julien Lowe, the complex gay character played by Michael Jace on The Shield, caused a stir. “We did on certain episodes actually have some advertiser concerns, and in certain instances advertiser pull-out … and we never blinked for a second,” said Reilly. “We just put it on.”"

Ummmm hmmm. They never blinked for a second. Does anyone else watch The Shield? Good show, but Julien kind of disappeared into the background (and back into the closet) after that first season, didn't he? "Complex gay character"? If you'd started to watch the show in the last three years or so, I'd doubt you'd even know Julien was-- or had been-- gay.

The show sure doesn't have a problem with other controversial subject matter, but a central gay character? That one got shoved so far to the backburner it fell out the kitchen window and rolled away down the hill. At least the FX guy acknowledged some advertiser discomfort (which had nothing, absolutely nothing, I'm sure, to do with Julien's disappearing storyline). I'd sure like to know who those advertisers were.

The FX's exec's claim that they "never blinked for a second" is probably because these days if you blink for a second when watching The Shield, you might miss the one second per season when any hint or mention is made of Julien's sexuality.

These execs are mostly providing just a lot of talk, talk, talk, if you ask me. I half expected some of 'em to start rambling on about how "some of their best friends are gay."

 First, let me say that James definitely deserved that GLAAD award.I loved part 1 of this article, and can't wait until part 2.Second, the article touched on what my last thread, To be coy means to rub salt in the wound, was about.For example, through out this whole Nuke debacle on As the world turns one thing i've heard over and over again was how CBS was caving to right wing pressure, and I never really jumped right to that conclusion like so many.I thought "I don't think it's that simple.Something else is going on, but since they won't be stright with us I guess we'll never know why they're really doing what they're doing".

While their answers weren't exactly conclusive, it was nice to see these network execs give clearer and more direct answers to the question of why there aren't more gay characters on network TV.I can't believe i'm going to say this, but i'm actually a little optimistic.Maybe it's their backgrounds in this area.Maybe it's the fact that these execs are newly appointed in these positions and, given a lot of what they said, they might actually turn this around starting with the next TV season.They've given me a reason to have a little hope in the fall.

Before those of you who know me on this site go thinking i've gone soft, let me say that, true to form, that tiny dash of optimism is far outweighed by my cynicism.They sang a song and hit all the right notes, but there seems to be a disconnect between what they say, however sincere they may seem, and what actually makes it to our screens.Mr. Reilly actually seemed surprised and disappointed with the failing grade GLAAD gave FOX and I was like "really?" because when I think of FOX not one prominent gay character just springs to mind.In fact, I just checked the listings for FOX for the next couple of days and nothing is even coming on that channel in primetime except for American idol.I don't even watch American idol, but i'll go into my little diatribe about reality TV in a minute.

<<Ostroff is asked why, with all this acceptance, there are no regular recurring GLBT characters on CW scripted shows. In what from a gay perspective might be seen as a stunningly sanguine response, Ostroff seemed to imply that the CW and its audience had made it to a post-gay world, expressing skepticism that this lack of gay visibility was even a problem: “It’s almost like in some ways it’s such a non-issue for [our audience] that it’s not even an issue whether or not you see it.”>>

First, let me get to what I think was the most disappointing and aggravating part of the article which was the interview with Dawn Ostroff.There are so many things wrong with that statement.First of all, I hate that phrase "post-gay".I fuckin' hate it!Second, the CW audience isn't as progressive as Miss Ostroff seems to think they are.I was on the CW message boards recently and when it was pointed out to some of the people that Dan, one of the hot male lead characters, is acutally gay, or bi in the books, on which this show is based, they started going on and on about how awful it would be if they made him gay on the show.

 Third, even if that weren't the case, it is an issue for me whether it's shown, or not and if she thinks the lack of gay visibility isn't a problem, or that it doesn't matter if those characters are ever even there because we're supposedly so past all of that then we have a problem.If "it's such a non-issue for your audience" then just show it.I've always had issues with this network because not only do gays get that kind of treatment, but so do people of color.Miss Ostroff is going on about this hip young audience and all I can think about is all of the popular one-hour hot young people oriented dramas the CW/WB is known for and how almost all of them had all white casts and the few characters of color that managed to make it to supporting role status got cut after a season, or two.....if they lasted that long.

 If you want to see gay people on TV you're definitely going to find them on reality TV....especially on BRAVO.That's one one area we are not lacking in, but the catch-22 for me is that I don't much care for reality TV.I've enjoyed a few, but not the vast majority of them.....especially rediculously over-the-top competition shows with those long drawn out elimination ceremonies, which is nearly all of BRAVO's programming.I like traditionally scripted genre shows which seem to be a dying breed these days.

It's strange having a spark of hope, and yet fully expecting more of the same.If they did make Dan gay I would have a reason to watch Gossip girl and I really wish they would, but we all know damn well they're not going to make one of the pretty boy leads of this show gay.That's why these execs can try to sell me on their "gay-inclusiveness" all they want, but I won't really believe it until I see it.

I agree with homoguy563. You definitely deserved that GLAAD award, and I think you might be up for another one this time next year after this article. Can't wait to read the second half.

I can't say enough about this article. Jim has a unique way of asking the right questions and giving the interviewees enough rope to hang themselves or present a case for readers to judge for themselves if what they are hearing to support blanket statements resonates.

I can't wait to read part two of this story. Part one leaves me thinking that they are working to say the right things, but I am not optimistic about change at the big networks unless they are more are more open about seeing their "entry points" and relatibility to include diversity.

I am not surprised about American Idol not being open for discussion but was surprised to hear Reilly's seemigly contradictory statements blaming the problem on the industry (them) being so worried about what Middle America and the gays might think and then going along with his peers about it somehow being an issue of not being presented with material by writers that is gay inclusive. It sounds like they are saying "write the gays and they will be on your screens." I hope all gay-inclusive writers are reading this article.... I am not holding my breath, but Ugly Betty does serve as an example of a character/show with many entry points so maybe we'll at least see on Ugly Barney. A gay one not so much, especially a male one as it seems like there might be some lesbians coming to nighttime, but gay men still might be too much to handle.

Coming attractions: Guillermo's Cultural Guillotine

http://springintoaction.typepad.com/cultural_guillotine/

<