Is the TV portrayal of gay and lesbian people fair?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Is the TV portrayal of gay and lesbian people fair?

Absolutely.

Thanks to TV I know there are only two types of gay man.

The hillariosly camp and flamboyant 'jon Inman' type always mincing about and making hilarious if slightly effeminate comments.

Or the slightly creepy predatory type featured in some detective/serial killer series.

Thanks TV you taught me everything I know.

Unless the plot of a drama touches upon a person's carnal conduct,how are we supposed to know he or she is homosexual? For all we know there could have been thousands of perfectly respectful portrayals of such people.

Oh, and I also know, thanks to Hollyoaks & Brookside, that all Lesbians are stunning size-zeros who could be enjoying catwalk careers if not for the series of unlikely adventures & hilarious misunderstandings constantly being thrown up by their sexuality.

What do you think about the portrayal of lesbian and gay people on television?

I don't. I judge each program on its own merits with regard to it's content, I do not break it down to see how many people will claim to be offended.

Does it affect attitudes in the wider community?

Only the attitudes of those too dumb to think for themselves.

How should we tackle homophobic bullying in schools?

In the same way as all bullying should be tackled, zero tolerance.

What I think would not be allowed on this topic......................!

So what? Gay and lesbian characters may be scarce and misrepresented but so are so many other groups. Men are whiny, commitment-phobic and useless! Squaddies are violent, marauding, post-traumatic wrecks! Black women are, without exception, fast-talking and sassy!

If you object to the existing programming, may I suggest you write and pitch your own.

46 minutes is too much.

This is typical of all pressure groups. Stonewall are seeing what they want to see.People nowadays are generally tolerant of peoples sexuality.
But it does no good to complain incessantly that you are not always getting positive publicity.
The same complaint could be made by young people from inner city areas who are usually portrayed as either criminal,ignorant or unkempt.Stop being so touchy and look for the positives.Do you hear Stephen Fry complaining?

Ooh while I remember Bisexuals of either gender also tend to be stunningly good looking, but utterly incapable of monogomy, usually straying the instant that somebody of the opposite sex to their current partner bats an eyelash.

And transexuals in TV land, bless them, only exist as a source of comedy for everybody else.

Fair to whom?

The way the media insist on continually thrusting homosexuality into our homes as 'the norm', it certainly does not consider the feelings and beliefs of the heterosexual community!

Criticising Eastenders for its depiction of gay characters is hilarious: there are no positive role models in that programme at all!

My sister, best friend, and a close friend at work are all gay. None make any big deal out of it. They live perfectly normal lives, do exactly the same things as everyone else does and just get on with their lives. They don't attend gay pride rallies, wear rainbow coloured clothes or anything else. In fact my work colleague didn't even tell me she was gay (although I guessed) for 3 years. In the same way I don't go around telling everyone I meet that I'm straight.

I suspect that Stonewall's definition of 'positive gay role models' would be something written by Russell T Davis... rather like Captain Jack from Torchwood. Some sort of gay superhero dropping gay innuendo every 3 seconds while saving the world from us incompetent and evil heterosexuals. The reality is that very few people define themselves by their sexuality and that 'positive gay role models' on TV are as unrealistic as the negative ones.

Incidentally I note Jeremy Clarkson gets more abuse in this article too. Clearly Stonewall didn't see him interviewing Will Young on Top Gear. Clarkson was far nicer to him that to most guests, Young drove better than most guests and Youngs sexuality was never discussed just what cars he liked. I'd say Will Young on Top Gear was the perfect positive gay role model.

I agree with the report. There is almost never a decent gay person on TV - the characters are always sex charged, druggies, overly feminine or trying to steal other people's partners. Writers seem to be unable to deal with a gay character realistically.

The majority of gay people are just the same as everyone else - they go to work, they pay bills and some have kids. Writers seem to only use gay characters for shock value when they can't think of anything else. It's also very annoying and damaging when writers "turn a character gay" and then change them back again. This is not real and it makes people believe that gay people choose to be gay. I have seen gay writers do this too so it's not only heterosexual writers that are to blame !

They get too much publicity as it is.

That poor girl playing a 16 year old lesbian in Coronation Street.

It's moral bankruptcy.

There are far too many gay and lesbian portrayals on the BBC in particular. The BBC is obsessed with gays and women to the detriment of everything else. I don't pay my licence fee to see rubbish night after night.

Young people rarely see positive images of lesbian and gay people on TV according to campaign group Stonewall.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Young people are rarely given portrayals of any particular group in a positive light, be it black, white, gay or straight.

I mean, have you actually watched Eastenders, Holly Oaks etc?

They all talk to each like they are dirt, mistrusting, devious, conniving and duplicitous.

Personally I think the statement from Stonewall could in actual fact cover all representations on TV, not just gay and lesbian.

Thank the Lord for documentaries – free of the script written drivel we have endure and are fed by way of “soaps” and “drama”.

14. At 11:47am on 22 Jul 2010, isobel45 wrote:
They get too much publicity as it is.

That poor girl playing a 16 year old lesbian in Coronation Street.

It's moral bankruptcy.

--

Unless of course the actress is a 16 year old lesbian...

...tries to think of a single chat show without a gay edge to it....

In soap operas? Who cares, they're hardly realistic anyway.

However, the vast majority of male TV presenters are gay. While I have no problems with homosexuality, I do make note of the obvious bias that favours gay men as TV presenters.

Not that gays necessarily present things differently to straight people, either.

British TV stories thrive on clichés and stereotypes of every kind imaginable. They give absurdly bad impressions of genders, sexual orientations, age groups, cultures, religions, etc. The plots are invariably clunky and forced and the narratives are poorly handled. They are shallow, preachy and immature. That is why I watch US television; Joss Whedon's work, for example, treats subjects like gender and sexuality with artistic integrity. Excluding portrayals of female characters even Japanese anime tops most of what Britain's drama is capable of achieving; it is quite pitiful.

If we're talking soaps I don't see any positive role models full stop as most seem to be half-witted inadequates of colossal promiscuity and no enduring emotional fibre. On that basis the negative portrayal of gays seems entirely consistent. As usual some people will see what they want to see.

"15. At 11:49am on 22 Jul 2010, PeterTigerman wrote:

There are far too many gay and lesbian portrayals on the BBC in particular. The BBC is obsessed with gays and women to the detriment of everything else. I don't pay my licence fee to see rubbish night after night."

Hmm if you take into account all the gay men and women in the UK, then straight men become a miniroty. People are always attacking the BBC for pandering to minorities and painting an unlrealistic picture.

Lose/Lose isutation for the BBC?

Hate to say it, but there are gay people and, yes, even women everywhere so maybe you need to accept this and that they will appear in television programmes and on documentaries!

This comes from a working class, straight, white male who I no way feels like a minority, and doesn't understand how some do...

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Thinking about it....

The only gay person I can think of on TV who is a joy to watch and listen to that doesn't do the sexual innuendo routine is the exceptional Stephen Fry. His humour and intellect seem to be based more in intellect, knowledge and a wider use of wit than relying on gay humour.

I suspect the stereotype for the gay community as held up by the likes of Alan Carr and Graham Norton don't really do the gay community any favours.

I forgot to mention Sandy Togsvik - Another fantastic wit and intellect able to raise above the innuendo stuffed stereotypes.

As a Gay man I do find that gay people do tend to be "stereotypical" when represented on TV. But then having said that Mr Summerskill is not representative of a majority of Gay people either. Most will realise that what he terms "obnoxious unpleasantness" of people like Jeremy Clarkson are not serious and will join in any banter and see it as humour, sadly Summerskill sounds like a stereotypical "mincing queen" when he spouts of like this and does most gay people a dis-service. We shouldn't loose the ability to have a sence of humour and laugh at ourselves, so long as it does not cause any hurt, but we shoulkd not be oversensitive. The EastEnders storyline actually seems to be quite good (for Miseryenders) as it tackles religion, some peoples difficulties in "coming out" - but why should we have to - straights don't go skipping down the streets shouting that they're hetero!, and also the "demands" of an out gay with the expectation that because they are "out" you should also.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I don't doubt at all that TV portrays gays in an unrealistic way - but in the case of Eastenders everyone is unrealistic. A bunch of miserable, scheming, violent, and deeply unpleasant people - not one of whom has a full time job, and yet all seem able to afford big houses.

As for the report saying "ordinary gay people are almost invisible on the 20 programmes most watched by the young"... how visible do they expect them to be? Frankly are they any more visible on 20 programmes most watched by the old?
Unless gays on TV are more like Dale Winton and less like John Barrowman, I would challenge most people to notice.

Does anyone really care? I mean come on, I bet even gay people couldn't care less. We all know current tv is a load of cheap trash.

" 3. At 11:39am on 22 Jul 2010, Eddy from Waring wrote:
Unless the plot of a drama touches upon a person's carnal conduct,how are we supposed to know he or she is homosexual? For all we know there could have been thousands of perfectly respectful portrayals of such people."

Couldn't agree more. Until TV shows stop defining people by their sexuality, viewers will continue to have their opinions shaped by the limited stereotypes chosen by TV producers.

JK Rowling had the right idea with Dumbledoor, he is gay but his sexuality is irrelevent.

I watch mostly American TV and thoroughly enjoy how it handles the subject of the dreaded Gays!

American Dad is particularly good at poking fingers up at homophobes.

Young (and naughty old) people have found a solution to this though - they just turn all their favourite characters gay in fan writing and post it to the internet (fanfiction)

15. At 11:49am on 22 Jul 2010, PeterTigerman wrote:
There are far too many gay and lesbian portrayals on the BBC in particular. The BBC is obsessed with gays and women to the detriment of everything else. I don't pay my licence fee to see rubbish night after night.

This is true, but i see more focus on women than gays. I had the TV on yesterday briefly (albiet ITV) and during an advertisement break there was an advert for Vagisil, an advert for a Divorce Lawyer practice (Group of very happy, wide-eyed ladies counting cash - can you believe it!), an advert for some form of kitchen cleaner where a women ejects her fella off the sofa (accompanied by the most god awful cackle and the comment 'got rid of that stain!) and an advert for pain relief where a woman said she had a previous pain in her life 'so she got rid of him' (again accompanied by a god awful cackle).

I switched it off and stuck radio 1 on which is pretty good in the evenings.

On the subject of gays, I do like the john inman mincer types as comedy characters but i'm sure there will be people objecting to this not being fair portrial. But to them I say, don't worry it's only comedy for heaven's sake. Maybe we should think of everyone and every possibility so on that basis the BBC should be critisised for not portraying a Gay, mixed race muslim one legged hermaphrodite with ginger hair and a disturbing penchant for the shaggy classic 'Mr Bombastic'

Heterosexuals don't have marches promting thimselves and don't bother about how they are portrayed on TV either, so why all the fuss about homosexuals?

To me I can't see why what people get up to in their private lives needs form any "need" for any public display or portrayal, be it positive or negative.

'Some people aren't gay...get over it'

I remember a friend of mine many years ago saying that only when we stop debating and talking about it can any prejudice be laid to rest - only when, on talking to an ethnic minority, or gay person, or someone of the opposite sex, or a disabled person, and we genuinely don't notice, or take into account their etnicity/sexuality/sex/physical attributes, can we honestly say that we have an equal, and fair society. We have a long way to go.
I don't actually watch Eastenders, or any other soap, as they only ever seem to be about how miserable people's lives are, but I'd hope that they would treat any minority in the same way as any person would want to be portrayed - with fairness, and with dignity.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"14. At 11:47am on 22 Jul 2010, isobel45 wrote:
They get too much publicity as it is.

That poor girl playing a 16 year old lesbian in Coronation Street.

It's moral bankruptcy. "

Publicity? They are not selling anything. Who is anyone to judge the morality of what two consenting adults do for fun in private.

I don't think it should be up to the media. But it IS a great admission that the media seriously influence people. We all know it but you won't get the media to actually admit it.

It isn't up to the media to make any particular comment about gays. With matters like this the media should be responsive to society - and for better or worse there are many out there who are still uneasy about gay openness; and whose negative thoughts are reinforced by the portrayal of gay as "normal" (which, purely on a statistical definition, isn't true).

You can't force changes to entrenched attitudes without unintended consequances, and while you can police what people write or say in public you can't police their thoughts.

So for all you gays out there: be patient. Attitudes borne of deep rooted morality take time to change. Don't expect it to happen over night. Along with racism, this is a subject that you can pretend you sort out with legislation but legislation doesn't get rid of problems.

Did stonewall stop to look at the % positive/negative portrayal of any other groups in the media? They have fixated on dramas too it seems from this report. Since when could drama be extracted from happy rosy outlooks in such programmes? Everyone in these programmes will have times when they exhibit undesirable characteristics. To then assign this as a % to each character based on their sexuality, race etc isn't going to do anyone any favours.
Across all media types, news, documentary and even drama passed off as real life based (Corrie, Eastenders etc) the writers should not portray any one in an unnecessarily negative light. But neither should they be there to champion someone else’s cause. They should aim to show or reproduce realism is society.
For those that Stonewall's comments are aimed at in the media, the points should be taken on board but they should hardly be basis for media reform.
Although in principle I think that stonewall have a point and that gay people should be portrayed as realistically as possible. Stonewall must be sure that they don’t become a solution………looking for problems.

Given the high proportion of gay people who work in the media industry you would be right in wondering how this situation has arisen.

Perhaps they should come forward and explain this? - or perhaps this situation is exactly what they want, since it fuels a disproportionate reaction of the authorities in promoting gay rights...

I dont know whether most of the people I meet are homo or heterosexual.

Unless they choose to tell me and that is their right.

So to gain "equality" (whatever that is) we need to have every character in every program categorised so that we know and can judge the program accordingly. then if we dont like it we can switch off.

All Ok with that - I am not, it's too close to Hitlers Pink badges.

If you dont like the programmes then dont watch them.

17

If she's not one now, after playing the role she might be brainwashed into becoming one.

How old is she?

Maybe Stonewall wont be happy until homosexuality is compulsory.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I'm not sure why we are all supposed to be concerned about the treatment of gays. Why single them out? They are just people as are heterosexuals, and there's plenty of negative portrayals of straights.

Sorry, Is that 46 mins in 126 hours of scheduling where they all had gay characters or 126 hours in which some of them didn't?

46 mins of 126 hours is less than 1% if the later? 99% if the former.

Now out of all the people I have ever been friends with or worked closely with, I have ever knowingly known 4 gay people. 2 of which fitted the sterotypes. Which would be 50% ratio.

Now either I have known more gay people and didn't realise it or the 1% ratio is about right given an acceptable margine of error.

Since I can't believe that 99% of all gays fit the stereotypes %1 would be about right. My logic got fuzzy at this point.

My question is how many straight characters were also portrayed in the same "promiscuous, predatory, or figures of fun" way?

All I can say is reports like these are a waste of time if you want to get anything useful out of them.

Unless gayness is a feature of the story,
a persons sexuality would not feature
unlike colour, age or gender
which is apparent to any creature

unless there are clues to a persons leaning,
a badge, hairstyle or steriotypical preening
how can you tell if someone is gay?
unless we find out in some other way

What about other sexual preference
is there a way to percieve a reference

so the only people on which to judge
are perople who reveal there urge
which restricts the writers lattitude
so they stick to basics however crude

its not for stonewall to complain
at sexuality not portrayed
as it seems thet groups with a sexual bent
are the ones who want it displayed

When most folk keep it under the covers
and dont show off to all the others

Why is it that minorities who shout loudest about the shortcomings of everybody not understanding them do not understand the normal people that are in the majority. Minorities always have something to claim they are being victimised or ignored when in fact it is the majority who are consistently marginalised.

It's common knowledge that the 'entertainment' industry employs a higher than average number of homosexuals & this is noticeably true of the BBC, so if the portrayal of gay & lesbian people is unfair...whos fault is that?

Stonewall are probably correct, but to take this 'gay' subject on its own would be a bad example to set to young people.

Most people are portrayed incorrectly on TV, stereotypes abound, beauty seems paramount in any leading actor, unless its a male 'detective' or crazy doctor, [so we need to see more ugly fat people, especially in women's leading roles]

I am also just as upset [as stonewall are] that introverts are not properly portrayed, this will affect children causing more bullying than being gay ever will.

I think Stonewall have unwittingly started a very important debate but it's about much more than who a person is affectionate towards.

Why don't you try telling us JonnyBGood and let the mods decide...?

Firstly do I care, second is it inportant, a equal argument could be made about your typical hetrosexual alpha male or your higly sexed female achiever. This is Television programs about normal people are boring.
Get a life Peter Tachell.

It seems almost obligatory for TV soaps to run a 'gay' storyline these days. There were even hints that 'Rocky' the penguin may have issues when, having spent longer than all the other penguins tidying his nest, he still couldn't attract a female mate............

Do you have the exact statistics and examples to back up that assertion Rob?

Of all the problems and exitential threats that plague humankind (a.k.a.: ewe-man-unkind), I would think sexual orientation to be a minor issue. Gays and lesbians, sometimes known as the 'Gay Mafiahh', should begin to think beyond single issue politics, especially in $ocieties where gay and lesbian acceptance is becoming the norm.

Wake up! The coming extinction will NOT be tell-lie-vised!

If the Stonewall report says the treatment of "gays" in the media is unfair and they just wish to be ordinary & anonymous within society why do they keep shouting about their "sexual orientation"? If they are anonymous and ordinary no one knows if they are gay or straight or whatever, and that would never do would it?

Message to Stonewall

Some people are not gay. Get over it!

The problem comes when networks try to centre stories around the plights of gay/disabled/BME characters in a buttock-clenchingly obvious 'look at us, we're bringing their issues to the fore and showing 'normal' viewers what these people have to endure. Aren't we an inclusive channel?' (Cue multiple BAFTA nominations...)
Whilst they SHOULD be doing this to some extent (after all, soaps are supposed to reflect real life), surely they should also afford these characters a chance to develop a depth beyond the sterotype?
My message to the networks? Don't try so hard! In doing so you're actually alienating minority groups MORE.

If gay men and women were portrayed more accurately on television then we would see that the majority lead lives that are just as mundane and boring as heterosexual people.

I'm a strait male and all I want to see is good drama representing real people. TV drama stereotypes and distorts all sorts of demographics as does TV in general. Kids are all feral beasts. Muslims are all terrorists or sinister. Women are all hardworking saints. Men are all feckless little boys. Adverts are the worst offenders.

I want to see gay characters because that is the world I live in. But I don't want to see gay characters whose only dramatic function is to be gay. My gay friends live everyday lives and face the same issues as I do -they just happen to be gay. That's what TV should show -instead it allows gay characters in only to make their sexuality their defining trait.

That said, there have been positive portrayals of gay or bisexual people. John Barrowman and Russell T Davies created a real one off with Captain Jack Harkness. Yes, he's flip and sexually suggestive but no more really than James Bond. What's important though is that he's not defined by his sexuality -he's a tragic figure but for other reasons. He also shows children, through Doctor Who, that a man can love another man without being a 'mincing queen'. The moment he kissed Christopher Eccleston's Doctor goodbye, full on the mouth, but without a hint of sexuality, was a great moment of TV.

Gay relationships should be shown on TV in the same way as strait relationships: normal, unremarkable, beautiful, amazing, dysfunctional, sad, happy, ephemeral, and enduring. That's all there is to it really.

Much of the gay representation is highly camp and sexual. Most of the homosexual presenters are typically camped to the max, such as Alan Carr and Graham Norton. Which doesn't help much.

Representation in soaps and dramas are through characters which only seem to deal with issues surrounding their sexuality, and rarely do little else. Which isn't realistic.

Similarly transgendered people are still subject to ridicule and mockery, on a similar level to the way black, oriental and asian people were portrayed 50 years ago. Thankfully nowadays actors who are non white don't have to play characters which only seem to deal with their skin colour. But there is still a way to go for those with alternative sexualities.

I know a lot of gay people and none of them are effeminate or predatory but just normal people who happen to fancy the same sex.
Thinking about their portrayal on TV drama it always seems to be a comedy role, however, the important word is 'drama' - people with any shred of common sense knows that this is just an act. Do people honestly believe that all northern women are as uncouth as Janice Battersby or southern men want to learn their trade on a car lot???!!!
In real terms, no one knows how well the gay community are represented on TV, when I watch Breakfast TV News there are loads of 'experts' on this or that subject - I bet some of them are gay but you wouldn't know it unless they started off like this:
"I know I'm on your show to discuss quantative easing, however, before we get onto that I just wanted to let you know that I'm gay.............."

I appreciate the fact that the BBC in enquiring into its portrayal of lesbian and gay people. I do agree that portrayal of LGBT's still leaves a lot to be desired, although I also appreciate the progress being made on Eastenders for example.

Whilst there is a lot to enhance for the age 16 plus audience, I am most astonished that for young people under that age homosexuality is effectively censored on TV (!)

The youngest people we see coming out on TV are 16, 17 years old (often broadcast very late, like Skins). This isn't good enough. A lot of people are aware of feelings of same sex attraction when they are 12.

In the Netherlands there is a daily 'soap/drama' series for 8 to 14 year olds on TV featuring gay main characters of about 14 year old. 8 to 14 is the real age when people start to familiarise themselves with emerging sexuality and emotions and look at how they might deal with things that happen to them or others around them.

Older children and young teenagers are now being kept in the dark which ensures isolation and hostility at school, on the playground and with friends and family.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

What Stonewall are really seeking is for the public media to promote homosexuality through propaganda using what they consider 'positive' stereotyping.

Personally I don't care how homosexuality is portrayed but I fear that 'making it stereotypically attractive' is just one step short of making the viewing of homosexuality on TV and Film compulsory and that I will object to!

A trick question from the British Brainwashing Corporation. No moral criteria is given. One might ask the same question about Muslims. Same sex unions don't work in Nature, why should they at the top of the human dogpile?

Anyone saying that because the media fails to aptly portray other groups it is somehow excused for portraying gay people poorly are lacking in sense. The same is true of those who think that sexuality is too private an issue to get TV story attention in any way that is not vulgar or stereotyped. Surely you can tell someone is gay because they are romantically partnered with someone of the same gender? People commenting here are a little lacking.

"" **** 17. At 11:55am on 22 Jul 2010, Togodubnus wrote:
14. At 11:47am on 22 Jul 2010, isobel45 wrote:
They get too much publicity as it is.
That poor girl playing a 16 year old lesbian in Coronation Street.
It's moral bankruptcy.
--
Unless of course the actress is a 16 year old lesbian...
*** ""
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I can't see anything wrong in what isobel45 wrote
It's a opinion ,not representitive of mine, but a perfectly valid view.
Do we have to pander to the HYS editors point of View?
if so why don't they write it all ( maybe they do! except for my bit ( or maybe i'm an editor too :-) ))

12. At 11:46am on 22 Jul 2010, Peter_Sym - Good points raised in your post.

People generally prefer to be defined by their character as opposed to their race or sexuality.

I think the real issue comes down to 'self-acceptance'. There's an insecurity within that demands that others 'respect' or 'accept' them, regardless.

It's a shame it is given so much attention as there are more important things to consider in life.

I don't think it is fair.

Gay & Lesbien people are mostly portayed as promiscuous.

I think the recent Eastenders story is more about the prejudice of Islam towards homosexuality as there is a geniune love story there.

Eastenders should be congratulated for tackling the subject.

I don't care.

So only 46 minutes to show gay people in a positive light. Well, I don't think programs like Eastenders shows anyone in a positive light, gay or not gay, young or old.

My 11 year old son came home from school a few weeks ago and told us that one of the girls in his class was 'proud' to announce that she was bi-sexual. I'm sorry but, all of this gay / not gay rubbish has gone too far. To have 11 year olds talk about being gay or straight beggers belief and shows that there is just too much talked about being open with your sexuality, especially with kids who are plainly not old enough to know.

I see we are labelling bullying now too....what a load of rubbish. If you are being bullied in school it should be stopped and it doesn't matter what the bullying is for. It just seems to be fashionable at the moment to say that you are gay.

If I started to parade around the streets saying that I am proud to be straight, I would be labelled as a homophobe. Yet, if I went round the streets saying I was gay, I would probably get a grant from my local council to start a gay rights group. Honestly, it's pathetic.

I don't care what you are. You are a human being like the rest of us and should not be treated any differently just because you are gay. You say that you don't want to be treated differently but, you sure don't act like it.

Is the TV portrayal of gay and lesbian people fair?

So are we going to have a discussion about the fairness of how people are portrayed in Eastenders, because it is just so beyond how so many ordinary people behave and respond to conditions/circumstances.

The VAST majority of homosexuals and lesbians on TV goes unnoticed, because they are often playing "straight" characters, because they blend in just as ordinary people blend in.

If you're behaviour sticks out like a sore thumb, then you will of course be more noticed, hence is Stonewall suggesting that camp TV presenters/hosts/comedians are negative images of homosexuals/lesbians, which they are in the largest part of gay representative majority on tv.

It seems that Stonewall and other similar groups insist that homosexuals/lesbians have to stand up and state their sexuality and set themselves apart from the general population, whereas so many actually do not want to be seperated and labelled by society or conformist groups, they just want to live their lives within social normality and be accepted as such.

Within society, there are certain characteristics of people/races/class/groups which are narrowly defined and used to enable recognition of behaviour/traits, whether a ginger haired person, or a dumb man in a kitchen.

I personally know the difference, people I know are very much different than that portrayed on TV, I know some very camp people, not all are gay.

There is one reality of TV, I dont know if Stonewall have noticed/realised it, but TV in general is a hugely negative medium, NOT just for the gay community.

Take for instance poorer people of any race/colour/sexual preference, what really positive images do you see, the vast majority are negative of dumb stupid low mentality, ability.

I have been to and in gay clubs and seen many public situations and in fact they have been more promiscuous than "straight" people. Theres nothing wrong with this but it is a reality.

Homophobic bullying whether in schools or work places or in public is unacceptable but there are so many instances of such bad/unacceptable behaviour accross the whole spectrum of society and many of these individuals or picked on groups just do NOT have a voice.

We live in an unequal world with much injustice/unfairness. Groups like Stonewall are segregated groups biasedly in favour of their own representation, if they were more active in equal and general representation of all groups, then they might have a more valid point.

If you want equality, yes promote it, use influence and point out specific incidents/situations/circumstance, but also seek that same quality and fairness for others, then a lot more may be achieved for so many, rather than the few.
If you want to be an equal part of the whole, then you need to include an equal whole in your part.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

68. At 1:19pm on 22 Jul 2010, ThisWorld wrote:
"" **** 17. At 11:55am on 22 Jul 2010, Togodubnus wrote:
14. At 11:47am on 22 Jul 2010, isobel45 wrote:
They get too much publicity as it is.
That poor girl playing a 16 year old lesbian in Coronation Street.
It's moral bankruptcy.
--
Unless of course the actress is a 16 year old lesbian...
*** ""
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I can't see anything wrong in what isobel45 wrote
It's a opinion ,not representitive of mine, but a perfectly valid view.
Do we have to pander to the HYS editors point of View?

---

Cheers for the promotion, i assume the checks in the mail?

Well I saw a recent repeat of Hustle, when the group where in Chinatown there was the instant "oriental music" that has stuck since the 1900s. So I think the gay community is making better progress than the Chinese community.

Then of course there's Gok Wan, wow doesn't he represent the Chinese people well (answer: NO).

doesnt matter to be honest - they are portrayed the same way everyone else is.....and if were talking eastenders then that`s miserable

3. At 11:39am on 22 Jul 2010, Eddy from Waring wrote:
Unless the plot of a drama touches upon a person's carnal conduct,how are we supposed to know he or she is homosexual? For all we know there could have been thousands of perfectly respectful portrayals of such people.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely. The trouble with campaigners is that once they've achieved the main objective, they go on campaigning about smaller and smaller issues which most of their former supporters wouldn't give a fig for, and just want to get on with their lives in peace.
Why do Stonewall always seem to want to see sexuality in everything?
Could your questions not be amended to read:
What do you think about the portrayal of heterosexual people on television? Does it affect attitudes in the wider community? How should we tackle heterosexual bullying in schools?

Of course portrayal of people on television affects us! That is why we watch it? If an attitude is consistently portrayed over the long term then people become accustomed and accepting of it without really realsising it. If it is done very violently or shockingly then we generally become very conscious of it and it may hit us as objectional. Children, and young teenagers, tend to take things on a very "face value" basis and have little to compare things with to check if it is fair or not and that is where the major danger of stereotyping lies.

I watched an episode of The Professionals, a 1980's tv series, the other day and found it dreadfully juvenile and i could see that they were not actually touching each other when they had a fight. It was all jerky and very amateurish; but when i used to watch it in the 80's i thought it was so realistic and so cool. So why did i see it differently when i was in my mid twenty's? Over the years i have been tought to expect more and to see things differently. I accept more violence and more blood etc, because i have become accustomed to it and this is the same for all attitudes on television. I accept more sexual images and more outrageous behaviour because i have had a gradual increase over time and so mistreating gay people, black people, and women will have an impact on us over time and we will be less shocked when we see it and more accepting of that negative behaviour in our society. Television has a role to play in societal development and it has a responsibility to be fair and honest about life.

48. At 12:39pm on 22 Jul 2010, Stephen Hamblett wrote:
Why is it that minorities who shout loudest about the shortcomings of everybody not understanding them do not understand the normal people that are in the majority. Minorities always have something to claim they are being victimised or ignored when in fact it is the majority who are consistently marginalised.

----

Awww

Another one suffering from the current right-wing vogue for claiming victimhood.

I'm a white straight male & i've never been marginalised or victimised by anybody.

Same thing could be said for any minority people group.
Only stereotypes make interesting TV, no?

Err ... Gaypride.

Think that answers the question then.

32. At 12:17pm on 22 Jul 2010, Sepenenre wrote:

Heterosexuals don't have marches promting thimselves and don't bother about how they are portrayed on TV either, so why all the fuss about homosexuals?

To me I can't see why what people get up to in their private lives needs form any "need" for any public display or portrayal, be it positive or negative.


......................................


So by that token, you would need to not show/portray heterosexual forms affection.

The reason why heterosexuals don't march about their sexuality is because it is deemed acceptable. Don't forget, women and ethnic minorities have had to march for equal rights in society and law. There are many legal rights denied to people because of their sexuality and if people of that group don't fight for them no one will do it on their behalf.

As for portrayal on t.v, your argument is actually on the same side as homosexuals, they don't see the need for homosexual characters to be overtly gay and only ever dealing with gay issues and gay storylines. It's the same as when non-white characters only ever deal with race issues.

LOL, of course "ordinary gay people are almost invisible" on TV this is mainly because ordinary gay people,much like ordinary straight people do not let their sexuality rule their lives and decisions and don't need to discuss their sexuality every single day, it is just a fact of their existance that doesn't need daily examination. In TV land things are different If the show needs the audience to know a character is gay then a big deal will be made out of it in the storylines and the character will be stereotyped in order to get the "look I'm gay" message across in 1/2 hour or however long they have to cram it into. the same rationale applies to all sectors of society as post #7 has already said. Surely we don't expect portrayals of any gender,sexuality,race etc in a TV drama to be 100% accurate if that were the case here's what we'd learn about straight men from Eastenders....
-They will ALL cheat,utterly incapable of a monogamous relationship those straighties.
-They will at some point work in 1)a garage 2)a caff(not cafe!)or 3) a pub.
-They will have terrible family issues usually centered around an overbearing mother.
-They will have a sibling that they are inexplicably jealous of/constantly argueing with (eventually it will become clear that they are not really related).
- They will either kill someone or get killed.
If you want to see realistic portrayals of people go watch a documentary, this is a non issue being bought up for someone who just seems to want a bit of publicity for his campaign group. backfired there matey.

That's because it's the ones that are always making sexual jokes that get noticed. My partner did not even know that a well-known lady news presenter is a lesbian. On the other hand, there is little left to the imagination concerning the likes of Graham Norton and Dale Winton, with a style of humour that matches that of (the now much derided by the PC brigade) Benny Hill.

I'm sorry, but have these campaigners researched all the detailed backgrounds of every character they have seen, and assumed that unless blatantly stereotyped as gay, they must be 'straight'?

Thought so - is Postman Pat gay or straight?

Guess what - IT DOESN'T MATTER!

For the BBC censors I explain:

When I tried to write that the Russians are usually portrayed on TV as big stupid violent mafioso bullies that was meant to illustrate the fact that gay and lesbian people is not the only category which is stereotyped on television.

You may agree or disagree with this proposition but I do believe it still remains relevant to this discussion and I can hardly see how such comment can be considered off-topic (for which it was removed).

yeah yeah homosexuality is just as normal as hetrosexuality as for the media well anything that can be "sexed up, sensationalised" is good for ratings.
However the gay pride marches where are the hetro marches, thats called a carnival matey and there are a few regular ones all across britain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Look, whatever turns them on, so long as they remain civilised i.e. be nice to one another.

The portrayal of gay people on television is mostly stereotyped. Then again, the portrayal of foreigners, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities is also mostly stereotyped. The problem is, a lot of TV characters on TV that are gay are only gay for the sake of being gay and their only defining characteristic is their homosexuality and very little else. To remedy this, characters should be introduced that are "normal" (for lack of a better word), but just happen to gay. I get the sinking feeling though, that Stonewall would then complain that TV characters 'aren't gay enough.'

"The report, Unseen on Screen, claims ordinary gay people are almost invisible on the 20 programmes most watched by the young. It says just 46 minutes out of 126 hours' output showed gay people positively and realistically."

46 minutes out of 126 hours???? Quite frankly every time I turn on TelevisionX or the Playboy channel there seem to be 2 homosexual females on screen. Far from being marginalised, it seems they are very popular.

86. At 1:53pm on 22 Jul 2010, richard bown wrote:

.... is Postman Pat gay or straight?

............................


He lives with his wife Sara and they have a six year old son called Julian. Oh and a cat called Jess.

If he's gay then he's living a lie and due for a breakdown.

The world is full of stereotypes and some like a certain female personality are self parodying and not good role models.
I think that certain portrayals of Gay Men are sufficient to boost the predudices of anyone - they certainly sicken me.
What we should be aware of are portrayals of any set of people that encourages violence and hatered.
I have had to put up with, and still do, predjudice from various sectors in society. It doesn't matter what my colour or religion or sexuality is. But on the other hand there are ways to deal with these people on a one to one basis. Generally from whatever strata of society they are they themselves are usually inadequate.But yes we should be aware and sensitive to this type of behaviour

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

TV has always been vulnerable to perpetuating negative stereotypes. It may not be right but as long as programmes are made by humans and humans have prejudices, it'll persist.

Frankly, I couldn't care less what someone's sexuality is. As long as they avoid the two golden rules:

1. Don't make a song and dance about it
2. Don't try and push their lifestyle on me

they can do what they like. Personally, I think they're over-represented on TV in the same way as ethnic minorities are over-represented on the BBC in general.

"

One's sexuality should be a private affair. It is offensive to regularly be told the homosexuals feel hard done by.

They are a minority and in my opinion get a proportional amount of 'air time' in the media.

Gay pride marches are slightly provocative because the homosexuals taking part simply promote themselves in an extreme and camp manner. Why march at all? I can't remember any Hetrosexual Pride marches taking place.

If you are gay then gain acceptance by integrating not setting yourselves apart.