According to a recent study of 87 TV shows’ 650 characters conducted by GLAAD, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, the number of GLBTQ characters depicted on network TV is declining, although rising on cable.
For the President of Iran and others who may not know, the GLBTQ acronym stands for people that identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, transgender or queer.
Exactly how much are incidences of queer characters shown on TV changing? GLAAD found that in the 2007-2008 television season, there will be only seven regular queer characters on network TV shows. According to the group, there were nine regular queer characters in the 2006-2007 season and 10 the season before that. This downward trend in queer characters on TV has many groups concerned, as they should be.
Although the U.S. Census Bureau and other organizations’ varying estimates find GLBTQ persons constitute anywhere from 1.9 percent up to a possible 10 percent of the total U.S. population, the seven queer characters figure comprises only 1.1 percent of all regular characters on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and CW TV networks, according to GLAAD. What’s more, six of those seven queer characters are all on one network: ABC. NBC has the one other queer character.
Alternatively, GLAAD finds 40 regular queer characters will appear on cable TV networks this coming viewing season.
I don’t watch TV, but I am nonetheless incensed and disappointed by the findings of this study, as it seems GLAAD’s president was as well. If I did watch TV, I’d quit watching networks that choose to promote inequality and discrimination against GLBTQ characters with their TV programming. I would encourage those of you reading this article to consider doing the same.
In a statement discussing the study’s findings, GLAAD President Neil Giuliano stated that “(w)hile we acknowledge there have been improvements made in how (GLBTQ people) are seen on the broadcast networks, most notably on ABC, (GLBTQ) declining representation clearly indicates a failure to inclusively reflect the audience watching television.”
I don’t know that I believe in coincidences, but I certainly don’t think three (really four) out of the five major TV networks’ decision to outright ignore and decline to represent queer characters in any of their programming is coincidental — or smart.
Whether or not you agree that homosexuality is a result of nature or nurture, or even if you disagree with GLBTQ lifestyle choices for whatever reason, you should be concerned with the downward trend in queer character representation on TV networks. It may be indicative of a larger trend toward inequality and oppression by the majority, both on TV and in society. I would argue that a decline in the proportionate representation of the diverse U.S. population or any group thereof on TV is definitely a cause for alarm. The findings of this study are not only disconcerting for diversity reasons, but for economic reasons as well.
Unless you’re the President of Iran, you probably know someone who identifies as GLBT or Q. You may even identify as GLBT or Q yourself. I can’t imagine GLBTQ people enjoy seeing their entire demographic largely ignored on TV, which remains one of the main outlets for society’s entertainment and education. GLTBQ people’s likely dissatisfaction with their underrepresentation on TV might negatively effect the economy in more ways than we realize.
The GLBTQ demographic was estimated to have $514 billion in expendable income last year. By comparison, all five of the aforementioned major TV networks will earn a combined estimated revenue of $174 billion this viewing year, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Coincidentally (or perhaps not), ABC — the network with the most queer characters in its programming — is the revenue-earning leader of the five major TV networks. Could it be that ABC’s attention to and representation of the GLBTQ demographic is paying off for them? Perhaps. Additional study would be needed to prove the correlation is actually causation. But the statistics are interestingly supportive of that possibility.
TV shows vary widely as to their content, targeted audience and subject matter. However, all of these factors aside, this GLAAD study indicates there is a marked disparity in the representation of GLBTQ persons versus other persons on TV. This lack of representation is not only unfair to the GLBTQ community, but unwise on the part of the TV networks who are ignoring this economically powerful demographic.
For the benefit of GLBTQ persons, allies for equality and our economy, I hope that TV networks wake up and smell the money through promoting proportionate representation and equality-minded TV programming.
I guess it was too much to hope that TV, even though it is for the most part make-believe, would even come close to proportionately representing the real U.S. population.
