GLAAD (the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) is mad. It seems the number of network TV shows with gay and lesbian characters has fallen and they're not happy. Cable is doing a little better, and they're fine with that, but networks, well, they're slipping.
When I heard this, the obvious question came to mind: does a TV show have some moral obligation to represent a cross section of America through their cast, or should that always be story and writer driven? As a writer, I can't imagine sitting down and having to include a gay person, Black person, Asian, Hispanic, etc. As a TV executive I can't imagine having a tally board to add up all the ethnicities or sexual orientations in the characters on my network. It seems absurd.
First of all, if we take a high percentage, let's say 10% of America is gay or lesbian. That's about 30 million people, or one in 10. That would mean if a cast has 10 people, one should be gay or lesbian, statistically. Blacks are about 12%, so 1.2 Blacks per 10 people, so on and so forth. Given that formula, TV is not only doing OK, but is saturated with all kinds of minorities and sexual orientations.
But with the various places people can find entertainment these days, is this argument even relative? Back when I was a kid (yes, they had TV then) we only had the networks, and then One Channel came alone (that's what it was called, One). That turned in to HBO, but truly, there was network, channel 52 (Speed Racer, Kimba the White Lion, UltraMan and such) and a movie channel if you were rich. The only place I could see gay people WAS on network TV. And what did I get? Billy Crystal on "Soap" (a fun character), Charles Nelson Reilly and Paul Lynde as the center square. It wasn't very hopeful and yes, we could have used GLAAD back then.
But today, when almost every one has over 100 channels or the internet, the argument just isn't valid. Logo exists, and as far as I'm concerned, GLAAD should be more concerned about the representation of gays on our own channel than on network TV. Logo has yet to fulfill it's promise, as has here!. The original programming is still very in the box stereotypical, most of the movies reshowings of older gay-themed films and the big series are reruns of The L Word or Queer as Folk. Not exactly ground breaking programming. Where's our weekly Bill Maher type show (which I'd be happy to do?), original movies with big name stars, exclusive concerts by gay artists and such?
I did this as a topic on my KGO AM 810 radio show, and an Asian caller said he hopes Hollywood DOESN'T decide to write in more Asians, because they're always hookers, gangsters and the like. The only Asian on TV he liked was Sandra Oh and the characters she chooses on TV and film. And he's right. GLAAD don't make TV write in more gays. We don't need more "Jacks" from "Will And Grace" because while we may know someone like him, we don't know someone like him ALL THE TIME. And Will would have had many boyfriends over the years instead of just Grace getting them, etc. I begged straight people not to watch Queer as Folk because I thought, if there were 20 shows on about gays and lesbians, fine, but if this is going to be it, can't it be a better representation? Can't someone other than the lesbians have a long term relationship? Can't a few of the guys just be, well, guys that are gay?
No GLAAD, it's not quantity, it's quality. Gone are the days of "David" from " Six Feet Under" perhaps the best, most well-scripted gay character on TV in years. His life was just as dysfunctional as the rest of his family's making it seem almost normal, and he got to have a life-long relationship with Keith ending in their deaths at the end from old age or accident. David was a gay man just trying to make it in business, at home, in life, like all of us. I saw myself and my friends in him.
And what about T.R. Knight? He's gay and on the #1 show on TV, Grey's Anatomy. Or Ellen who is all over TV these days? Rosie? The gay kitsch that is "Ugly Betty?" Now more than ever gays and lesbians have a face, and a voice, on TV. As for characters, if a story call for a gay character, bring it on. I'm more concerned with gay actors getting a job, meaning, gay actors playing gay or straight, than I am the number of characters that are gay on TV, since they often have those played by non-gay actors.
And by the way, when did we all get together and vote for GLAAD to be our voice in media? Did I miss that day at the polls? Was there some super-secret gay vote that went on, where we also approved our agenda? Because quite frankly, if the stereotypes that do pop up on network TV are the best that the ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox along with GLAAD can do, then keep them.
And, if we want to be representative of America here, forget more gay characters, where are the fat women and men on TV? 60% of Americans are obese, and where are they on TV? Why is it men get to be of substance, but women have to be rail thin? The average dress size is 12 in America, Eva Longoria is a double zero. Who's rallying for Fat people visibility on the tube? Perhaps we don't want TV to be THAT real.
And that's just it, TV isn't real. It isn't a slice of Americana in every show, it's fake, smoke and mirrors. You want more gay characters on network TV? Get some good writers together, script great TV shows with gay characters or themes, and then sell them to the networks. All they care about is money. If a gay character on their network makes them money, they'll stay and more will follow. The only color that matters on TV is green and the only orientation that matters is one that leads to profit. When it's profitable to have more gay characters on TV, they'll be there.
But in the mean time, now, more than ever, if a network doesn't reflect you, change the channel. Today, every demographic can find a niche on TV. And in the era when some queen can cry her way to a reality TV show (the "leave Britney alone guy" from YouTube just signed a deal) well, let's just say sometimes less is more.
Follow Charles Karel Bouley on Twitter: www.twitter.com/talkradiolive
I also can understand where GLAAD is coming from as they won't keep tabs on how many Hispanic characters are on TV, for example. But I also agree that I watch a particular news show (Keith Obermann rocks!) or network show for the writing and not just for whether there's gay people on the show (sorry Ugly Betty, not a fan).
Be as freaky as your want and our kids are not exposed.
Or, in the case of Al Swearingen, of David Milch's "Deadwood", maybe five or six seasons.
Nobody, but nobody, does it like Milch. HUZZAH!