 by Brian Juergens
Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
Who's onlineThere are currently 23 members and 779 guests online.
|
IMHO ABC News "Primetime": Would You Help This Gay Couple?
We mentioned in yesterday's Queerview that ABC News' hidden-camera experiment "What Would You Do?" was returning last night on Primetime with another situation involving gay people doing gay things in public. The question this time was how the denizens of a neighborhood sports bar in New Jersey would react to a gay couple being openly affectionate to one another, and to a homophobic customer's attempts to rally the regulars against them. As with the last gay PDA experiment, the show chose an actual gay couple to play the canoodling lovebirds, and in addition also planted a straight couple at the other end of the bar to behave with similar open affection, as well as a noisy patron who made gay jokes and was openly hostile toward the guys. The results were actually pretty surprising. Despite the homophobic patron's attempts to raise a lynch mob at various times of the day and using various tactics ranging from humor to outright nastiness, he was met with resistance every time, with the bar patrons turning on him in defense of the gay couple and at times becoming quite determined and even emotional in that defense. A few moments from the experiment really stand out. The bit that stuck most with me was when the otherwise unassuming guy with his buddies told the homophobic fellow to shut up or they'd get rid of him, because the gay couple wasn't hurting anyone and had every right to be there. But the most unexpected reaction came from a young lady whose defense of the gay strangers reached the point of confrontation. They sat down with the woman afterward and she was visibly shaken by the situation, and revealed that she has gay friends who have to live with this kind of discrimination on a daily basis. One of the few patrons who played along with the homophobe made a few comments under his breath about how "disgusting" the gay guys were, but when the cameras came out he changed his tune quickly. Host John Quinones asked a psychologist what would lead to this behavior and she said, flatly, "tolerance has become an American value," and that people do not want to appear to fall outside of that standard. I also liked that the piece framed the discussion by noting that gay rights are being widely and openly discussed (referencing Prop 8 and Milk) and not something that anyone should be afraid to talk about. Did anyone else catch the segment? If not, it's available online. While I'm not generally a fan of hidden-camera pieces, this one was interesting and didn't make we want to relocate to an igloo in the tundra like some others have. But that's just IMHO - what did you think? Submitted by on Wed, 2009-03-25 08:01. |
 Recent Comments
Recent blog posts
|
Welcome to AfterElton.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media
I have such mixed feelings
I have such mixed feelings about these segments, and have a very hard time articulating why, so please bear with me.
On the one hand, it's a very interesting and surprisingly encouraging result. It certainly creates discussion and that's a good thing.
On the other hand (and this is the part that bothers me) there's an element of humiliation and pervasive groupthink that makes me very uncomfortable. Not just with this segment, but each time they do one of these things.
It always leaves me with a sense of uncomfortable pity for the folks who end up humiliated or shamed because of their actions (or lack thereof.) And most of the time, I am horrified by what they have done (or not done) so pity is not what I want to be feeling toward them!
I can't help but put myself in their shoes. I know I'd like to think I would behave in a certain way in these situations, but who knows what would happen in the moment? Maybe I wouldn't, and then maybe I'd go home and feel terribly guilty about it... but to have that moment captured on film for all the world to see? Ugh.
I tend to rebel against any attempt at emotional blackmail, and that's sort of what I see when I watch these segments. There's a sense of communal tongue-clucking going on, a sense of "Can you BELIEVE that guy didn't do X or Y?" when I sense that many of the folks doing the tongue-clucking would have done the same or worse in those situations.
I get the same feeling when I hear those radio prank jokes where they bust the guy cheating on his wife with the wife on the line... it's about humiliation and shame, and maybe it's just me, but I have a palpable response to people taking joy in making someone feel that way, REGARDLESS of what they've done.
The mirror is your friend
Shows like this often poke a hole in an individual's invented self, or how they see themselves. Unfortunately, a viewer may walk away from that show making a judgment about an individual based on a single incident. But so be it. What I think may be more of a shame, is when people watch a show like this, see themselves, then turn around and create a justification for those actions in order to preserve their own inventions. Some of the most compelling drama in reality T.V. has been watching people try to swim in a river in Egypt.
As far as the group thinking goes, I agree that it can be appalling in these shows. I'm someone who often thinks outside of the box and so, I'm used to going against the group-think. I try to be somewhat callous toward disingenuous and unoriginal thinking. I'd like to believe that shows like this one would encourage the same in their viewers. One of the best tools that we have to confront bigotry is by holding up a mirror. I think of Jane Elliott's ground breaking “blue-eyed/brown-eyed” exercise.
But any show that preys on human weaknesses just for sport and to laugh at someone's short comings or misfortune, well that's kind of like a modern Roman Coliseum, which tells us more about the spectators than the sport.
Very interesting
And pleasently surprised by the outcome of the experiment.
This kind of pieces are supposed to make someone uncomfortable, that is the whole point. Sometimes one doesnt begin to questions things until someone calls you on it or makes you uneasy in some way. And yes shaming is sometimes necessary, when their behaviour is shamefull.
I hear you, but I
I hear you, but I respectfully disagree. I think shaming and humiliating someone is the WORST way to teach them a lesson, which is why this whole scenario rubs me the wrong way.
The person who is shamed is less likely to learn anything OTHER than shame. So, next time they are in this situation, they aren't going to say "Hey, I remember when this happened last time, boy did I learn a valuable lesson!" They are going to say "Oh, HELL no, I'm getting away from this situation as quick as I can."
But it's not just that. There's a component of moral superiority to these situations that goes against the grain too. It's not good enough to teach someone how their behaviors hurt others; they have to be reminded that they are scum and put on TV for all to see, as well.
It just seems counterproductive to me. I see the INTENT of the experiment, and think it can be very valuable... I could just do without the superior posturing some of these folks take. Because I think it's VERY likely there's something in THEIR lives that wouldn't look so flattering if caught on film. (As I imagine there are in all of our lives.)
I like to think I TRY to be a good person. But I know there's been times when my PC filter wasn't on, or I looked the other way when I saw something going on that I knew was wrong, for a VARIETY of reasons. None of us is ever vigilant, even if that's what we strive to be. And I take issue with folks who claim that they are, or take joy when someone else is proven to have feet of clay just like them...
Don't misunderstand, I'm not in any way defending the folks in this piece or others that displayed insensitive behaiors or contributed to harming someone else, or stood by and did nothing. I think the folks who had the guts to stand up to these people SHOULD be applauded, and THAT'S what these pieces should be about... not shining a spotlight on the bad eggs.
Seems fair
I agree that this show uses moralizing for dramatic effect and I could do without that, completely. They seem to always be talking to the ladies in the front pew at a church (maybe that's their target audience?)
You are good, Zanefan. Do you mean that you try to act better? When I hear you say that your "P.C. filter wasn't on" it reminds me that P.C. is often about manners. Like making the other person comfortable in our human presence by refraining a fart. The bigger issue for me is about owning and understanding our own prejudices. We are raised in a bigoted world. It takes time for even the wise among us to unlearn that training. The question should never be "am I prejudiced." You are. We all are. The question should be, "what am I doing about that." P.C. doesn't command you to be a better person, but makes us aware of how that better person might act.
Yes I am bound to make a faux pas, or show my ignorance, I can only hope that someone is kind enough to point that out. And if anyone hates me for making one mistake even if thats the only thing they have seen me do? That reflects more on them than me.
Gay Couple
Primetime: What Would You Do?
Last time they did this experiment, they did choose a more conservative area.
They filmed a gay couple kissing on a bench in Birmingham, Alabama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0IoOSKndcQ
Many of the reactions (one included a 911 call) were decidedly less than friendly.
The show was kind of a
The show was kind of a social experiment but with no real point. Sure we learned how people acted but the conclusions were negligable. Three things stuck out for me:
1. The actors were being overly stereotypically effeminate at times. I am not saying this in discrimination of effeminate gay men, I am saying this as the experiment perpetuated a stereotype. Why couldn't the two be watching the game and holding hands as they rooted the team on? Why couldn't they do a head on the shoulder thing during the game? Why did it have to be broad in behavior? Why couldn't it have been subtle and also normal in presentation like the straight couple who were also actors. I didn't see the straight people bringing balloons or flowers or continually kissing. It was a little too PUNKED for me.
2. John Quinones referred to the "gay lifestyle" when interviewing the woman who outwardly defended the couple and left the bar crying. What was with that?!!
3. The gay couple segment was run at 1045pm. Was this a way of ensuring it was during a "safe time"
experiment
I think the point was obvious, "to see how people might react to a gay couple in a typically non-gay bar." They went to a "sports bar" a place thought of as being typically straight only. The show was undoubtedly inspired by a recent flap about a Houston, "Guerrilla Gay Bar" party, (reported elsewhere by a reader at AfterElton.) I think what we learned, is that attitudes at such a bar seem to have changed, in case you didn't know that.
1. The thing is that some folks have a hatred for feminine men, more so than butch men. "I like Billy, he's gay but he's not like obvious. He' acts normal." That's something you hear even in the gay community. It means that the man in question is not feminine or even gay acting, dare I say. Considering this attitude, to excise any homophobia it seems smart to show feminine or stereotypical gay behavior in this experiment. The experiment wasn't to see how well a gay couple could "pass" or blend in, quite the contrary.
2. Why do they insist on using the term "gay lifestyle" Nobody says "straight lifestyle". I was going to mention that too, thanks. I'm glad to see someone else caught that. If they are talking about canoodling, then why not say "gays showing affection in public", or "gay public displays of affection." Showing affection in public, which is all this couple did, can hardly be called a lifestyle and lifestyle is one of the words that the religious right have used, and tried to appropriate, to suggest many types of unsavory behavior beyond PDA. Respected media need to stop using that term because I wonder if they're actually defusing it in an instance like this.
3. yes, I am sure a network would qualify this as not ready for prime time.
interesting
It does make for good tv, and it's nice to see that most people would defend the couple. I don't think it's that educational and informative, in terms of the full range of reactions people might have. I know that for myself, I would not have confronted the bully directly. Instead, I would ask the management of the establishment to ask the disruptive patron to leave. That's probably a more realistic reaction in most situations, but it's not as entertaining. Anyway, this is not meant to be a scientific study. It's meant to entertain, and it does. I guess it's good that the media is interested in this topic?
As for the people who came accross badly, it certainly is harsh on them. I do feel a bit conflicted. We only see one moment of their lives where they did something bad. We don't know what, if any, good things they may have done in their lives. Also, while in this case it's very clear that some people were anti-gay when they thought they could get away with it, on other episodes of this show, people were negatively portrayed for things I thought were innocent. For example, they faked a theft to see who would respond. But it was a situation where it wasn't obvious that it was a theft if you didn't know the person. I've taken things out of my family members' purses in public, and it never occured to me that somebody might think I was a thief. I probably wouldn't assume a guy was stealing if I saw him take something from an anattended spot. I'd assume he was a friend of the person who left it. I think the show does over sensationalize. But I expect participants do have to sign a release in order for their clip to be aired, so I don't think they're being shown against their will.
Nice to See, but Not Nice
First off, it certainly is nice to see strangers stand up for what is right. That said, I think this type of TV programming is quite unethical. I'm a grad student working on my PhD in the social sciences. Whenever we do any research that involves humans, that research must be approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB process ensures that your research will not harm anyone. Additionally, you must inform all participants of potential risks prior to the research. (For a survey, that might only mean including a statement that the survey might bring up unpleasant memories. For an in-depth interview on a difficult subject [a Holocaust survivor, for example], you might be required to offer post-interview counseling.)
As this is TV, there is no IRB overseeing these social experiments. NBC pushed too far with their "To Catch a Predator" and it allegedly resulted in a suicide. Although I admit I haven't watched any of these Primetime programs, I can only wonder what harm they might be causing in the name of ratings.
thankfully not news
2 comments
So I have two comments:
1) It is interesting that there was nothing about this segment in the show opener - they talked about the racism, the bait-and-switch dating, and Linda Hamilton... No mention of the gay couple at the sports bar.
2) The gay couple used in the dating segment was cute. Just saying. :)