Voices: Gay TV
Recent news stories from the Associated Press describe the process of two media giant Viacom divisions toward creating the first cable channel aimed specifically at gay viewers. Perhaps the greatest problem with the concept of gayTV lies in the closing quote of Bill Carter's article, headlined "MTV and Showtime Plan Cable Channel for Gay Viewers" (The New York Times, Jan. 10): "No one who doesn't want this will ever see this channel," quoted by Gene Falk, senior vice president for MTV digital media group.
Not only will the proposed channel include advertising, it would be offered to the public only via a paid subscription, like Showtime, but at a fraction of the fee - five to six dollars a month. Showtime claims that according to preliminary "tests," the reaction of gays is positive.
Showtime, by the way, already has a program, reputedly doing well, titled "Queer As Folk."
Why not just continue with the trend of increasing the number of gay characters on existing TV network programs? Rather than project mending images of inclusion and diversity, it is in the best interests of marketing executives to keep us closely cloistered in niche groups.
(Which one are you in? I'm sort of caught up in the Bravo / IFC thing myself.) It might benefit society to see richly unique individuals interacting, but it's just going to confuse the matter of who is the target audience. It's easier for the media to just segregate gay programming, making it inaccessible enough so that homophobes won't raise a stink, but not so inaccessible that the gay community would protest.
No one except gays who subscribe to get the channel are ever going to see the advertisements. Isn't that just a little too convenient?
On the other hand...
I don't know about you, but I'm curious about what gayTV might present. The prospect of additional film screening is welcome and some of us have already gotten a satisfied taste of "Queer As Folk." The real curiosity for me lies in the other proposed programming: Talk shows. Hmmm... Trashy or compassionate? Sandra Bernhardt's show already bombed, didn't it? Who might the Jerry Springer of gayTV be? The Howard Stern of gayTV?
Would everyone on gayTV even be gay? Sitcoms would likely include that crazy straight neighbor who tries real hard, but just doesn't seem to get it. Where would bi-sexuals fit in?
Travel shows. It's a cliche - not that the network would necessarily avoid them - but can't you just see the couple with the fussy gay guy and his "ready for anything" partner attempting to compromise about their trip to Brazil one week and to Iceland the next?
And the commercials... oh, the possibilities are endless. Imagine a Mentos commercial on gayTV: The gay twirler drops his baton and breaks away from the pride parade to pursue a long lost love?
What kind of hair removal products might a drag queen recommend?
What kind of cleaning secrets does gorgeously clean young man use to get his kitchen so shiny?
Where do lesbians buy those really comfortable looking, yet not-dumpy-clothes anyway?
Wouldn't this programming eventually begin to define "the gay lifestyle?" Could that be enlightening? Could misconceptions and presumptions really dissolve? I can't help but think that the same stereotypically homogenous images as MTV uses to brainwash our youth would surface on gayTV, too. Aside from sexual satisfaction, I've always understood an appeal of homosexuality to be that freedom from corporate-interest created gender stereotypes.
Are men really from Mars or did we just cram so much television testosterone down their throats that they've emigrated there?
Joan Garry, the executive director for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, feels the bottom line is that the network would provide visibility. Visibility being a good thing.
The new network could debut in a year's time... What do you think?
--alicia grega-pikul, 17 January 2002
