"Straight-Washing" Entertainment

It's all the rage among the 'mos to denigrate the "gay" American TV networks, such as Logo, Here! TV and the faltering Q Television Network.  You've heard the rap before:

"They reinforce negative stereotypes.  They don't show our lives.  Their production values are a disgrace to right-brained queens everywhere.  Their content is recycled, derivative of other sources, or redundant, given the existence of other channels like Bravo or E!"

But guess what, boys?  We need these networks.  We should support them and encourage them to put on realistic and entertaining gay programming that is relevant to our "community," insofar as there is one.

Why?  Because although gains are being made, we still don't get quite a fair shake in the mainstream media.

Exhibit A, the first clip from "The Tony Danza Show" that will ever be played on MalcoVision.  (And judging by Danza's ratings, possibly the last.)

Actor Anthony Rapp, one of the most talented performers in almost any medium who also happens to be an out gay man, stopped by this morning to promote his new book, "Without You," a memoir that focuses on his 11-year association with the musical "Rent."  The dominant themes of the book include Rapp's life as a gay man, and the loss of several friends to AIDS.  The book jacket even mentions Rapp's partner, Rodney To.

So what was Danza interested in talking about?  The death of Rapp's father.

The Washington Blade ran an editorial on Friday about the "straight-washing" of the news, a phenomenon that seems to cross over into some daytime talk shows.

Until it becomes second nature for straight America to talk to and about gays like we're just anybody else, there will be an important spot at the electronic hearth for Logo and its cousins.

[Watch video – 6:57, WMV format, high bandwidth]

[Watch video – 6:57, WMV format, low bandwidth]

Comments

[North Dallas Thirty]

I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding here.

A small minority of the population has lost several friends to AIDS and has a same-sex partner.

Everyone, in some way, shape, or form, has to, has had to, or will have to deal with the death of their father.

Personally, I'm THRILLED that a daytime talk show for once portrayed a gay person as a human being with parents and feelings, rather than focusing on how many of his fellow (filthy-queer) friends died of AIDS, or how "fabulous" his boyfriend is, or how good the sex is when you're a Broadway star.

In short, Tony Danza, the Washington Post, and other media are finally doing what we've always asked them to do, which is to treat us just like everyone else and leave off the "openly-gay" that was previously de rigeur on every story. For once, a police officer could commit suicide because of the pressures of the job, or a woman could land a role as the voice of the DC Metro, without their sexuality having to play into it.

Again, the old maxim proves true: "Be careful what you ask for, lest you actually get it."

[Malcontent]

I couldn't disagree with you more. It's almost pro forma that chat-show hosts ask their interviewees whom they're dating, how their relationships are going, etc. etc.

It is not treating us "just like everyone else" to so assiduously gloss over such important aspects of gay people's lives.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Well, first off, they were talking about the death of Anthony's mother, which resonated with Tony because he had lost his mom similarly.

Of course, that was after the first three or so minutes in which they were talking about the social commentary of Rent, including how it shows diversity and also the true impact of HIV/AIDS.

Furthermore, Tony left the door open at the end for Anthony to comment. Instead though, Anthony (horrors!) chose to emphasize the book and his tour.

For a seven-minute segment in which basically three questions were asked, I'd be quite pleased with that. If it's that important that Anthony jump up on the couch and proclaim his undying love for Rodney, than we obviously ARE going to disagree.

[Jack Malebranche]

But guess what, boys? We need these networks. We should support them and encourage them to put on realistic and entertaining gay programming that is relevant to our "community," insofar as there is one.

Why? Because although gains are being made, we still don't get quite a fair shake in the mainstream media.

Sorry, Malcontent. I'm not buying it.

Every piece of content I've seen, as well as the direction of these channels, just seems like a televized gay pride parade that pushes gay ghetto culture and gay mainstream politics. Quite frankly, it's exactly the opposite of anything I'd want regular Americans to see, and associate with me personally.

You may find these networks to be of value. Maybe they will transform into something worthwhile after a few years. Anything is possible.

But we, as in you and, more importantly, I, do not need them.

[Craig Ranapia]

Mal wrote:
I couldn't disagree with you more. It's almost pro forma that chat-show hosts ask their interviewees whom they're dating, how their relationships are going, etc. etc.

My response:
Tom Cruise, join a cult that allows it's adherents to take Ritalin. Now. Then again, if Katie Holmes can bear being endlessly humiliated by her dork finace the whole Scientologist silent labour thing should be a snap.

[Keith Strong]

North Dallas and Jack nail it; and I'll add this: Good storytellers look for common, hopefully universal themes in any story. That's what makes a story resonate, that's what makes a story timeless. I'm not saying Danza is a good storyteller, but he's smart enough to know he has a responsibility to his audience-- overwhelmingly straight people--to tell them stories that resonate with them, that will touch them. The only reason for a host to force a chat about something a tiny fraction of the audience could even relate would be to generate political brownie points among one’s talk show buddies. Pointed political messages with a date stamp nearly always fail in these fizzy talk forums: this is why the once beloved Rosy crashed and burned: in one, bitter, angry period, she transformed from Every Woman telling common, universal stories into An Angry Woman. She wasn't universal. She wasn't even appealing. The audience collectively turned their backs. This is a lesson that the newly beloved (and very delightful) Ellen appears to have learned well. (This goes doubly for Ellen, considering her own selfish little sitcom fiasco--attempting to tell a story that maybe 5% of the viewing audience cared about or could relate to, and when it fell on deaf ears, proclaiming that the world was “homophobic.” Please!)

Yeah, yeah, gay love is as universal as straight love, happy Valentine’s Day and all that hooey. It is the very act of separating and differentiating the two "loves" that renders this claim not so.

About the gay networks: Girlfriend, can we talk? These silly little channels only serve to illustrate for me the only manner in which an alternative to a universal story can succeed: the Scandalous Story (a better term eludes me). These stories are the staple of 24-hour news channels and "Cops," and they're universal stories all right: they speak to the base, prurient natures of most folks. Hey, I loves me some hot gay butt as much as the next guy – but we “need this?” I don’t think so.

I have to defer to Jack Malebranche and his excellent comments on this site in another thread regarding the "culture" of gay as opposed to gay "identity." Queer TV is purely fabricated gay culture, as disposable as Chinet.

And don’t get me started about "Gay news?"

You want "gay TV?" I'll take HBO: Sopranos, that's my gay TV. To insist that "gays" need their own channel is not only insulting, it misses the whole point of what "we're" supposedly attempting to achieve.

I'm so tired of gays looking under every rock for conspiracy. If you look hard enough, you'll find it. And it will be true, for you. No sense arguing.

[Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest)]

Mal, I was going to disagree with you until I read your first comment about how it's pro forma for talk show hosts to ask about relationships/dating life.

I mean, I once had lunch with a prominent gay man who thought he should be able to post a picture of a scantily-clad muscleman in his office as a co-worker would post a picture of his wife.

It's one thing to not ask him about his sexuality (which doesn't bother me all that much), it's quite another not to ask him about his relationships (which would bother me if the host asked straight guests about theirs).

Thanks for clarifying.

[Downtown Lad]

Dan Savage spoke about gays who aren't "gay activists" the other day in his NY Times editorial. He called them "gay doormats".

Lots of "gay doormats" in the comments section of this thread.

Spot on Mal - you're 100% correct. I don't need "gay doormats" like ND30 and Gay Patriot West trying to censor what I see on TV.

[Keith Strong]

Downtown Lad, c'mon--you can do better than that. Someone dares to explore the logic flaws of a few of the lesser tenets of The Gay Gospel, and you go all ad hominem, and not even good ad hominem. Where's the really juicy dialogue stoppers, gems like, "gay homophobe;" Or my personal favorite, "self-hating gay." "Doormat" is so . . . Betty Friedan.

[North Dallas Thirty]

First, you might want to READ said editorial first -- or at least attempt to quote it accurately.

Google Chad Allen's name, and discover that he's a "gay activist." ("Gay activist" is a term evangelicals apply to any homosexual who isn't a gay doormat.)

Really, DTL, Dan Savage isn't always the brightest bulb in the jar, but he knows better than to call other people "doormats" when he's standing there with John Kerry's footprints all over his chest.

And I will close with my usual rejoinder....both GPW and I oppose gays drinking drain cleaner. Go out and prove you're not a "gay doormat" by doing the opposite.

[Malcontent]

Sounds like y'all's idea of "mainstreaming" is no gay representations in the media whatsoever.

You can stereotype the "gay channels" as much as you want, but they're not the gay pride-style freak shows you make them out to be. Some of them, especially Logo, have very thoughtful programming. (And I probably watch more of it than the average gay American.)

Count me among those who would like to see, every once in a while, portrayals of people I can relate to in terms of sexuality. "Universal themes" are fine, but all-universal, all-the-time just sounds like another term for "back of the bus" to me. And judging by all the people who flock here everytime we report that Jake or Heath blew their nose, I'm not alone.

"Sopranos" is your gay entertainment? Whatever.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Count me among those who would like to see, every once in a while, portrayals of people I can relate to in terms of sexuality.

But you just saw one this morning -- Anthony Rapp. He's gay, talented, has a partner, and is in the media business.

What was it, exactly, that you couldn't relate to about him?

[Malcontent]

So now if I don't know who someone is ahead of time, I have to do a Google search on everyone who's on TV? Maybe it would have been nice to hear, you know, his coming-out story. Maybe I could relate to it. Or maybe to hear about a few of those friends who died of AIDS and what they meant to him.

Look, I know national network TV is sort of about the lowest common denominator. Which was sort of my point in the first place.

[Keith Strong]

Dear Mal, it ain't all or nothin’--honest. How about we shoot for a more "organic" portrayal?
I like to see --every once in a while--portrayals of gay people.

Call me an idealist, but I seek a day when "gay representation" in the media, or anywhere else, is representative of humanity: 5-10% of the content, of a story. And not artifically "added" in a calculated, affirmative-action kind of way, but in an organic way. I most enjoy and appreciate the movies or TV shows when the gay character(s) appear organically, as a natural part of the unfolding of the story, rather than inserted for whatever reason, because for me anyway, that's the way it really is.
I understand some people really need to relate to others purely in term of sexuality. And that's why, despite Downtown Lad's claim to the contrary, I don't think any of us want to "censor" TV. (I just don't get that logic: You disagree with something and by default, you want it banished?) Good ratings and a long life to Queer TV. If there's an audience, hey, different strokes . . . I just hope that if some of us don't find ourselves portrayed there, we are allowed a "place at the big gay table" for an opportunity to explain why.
And yes, Sopranos is my "gay" TV, because it illustrates my point, albeit indirectly. I enjoy any good, compelling, well-written entertainment, when I find it relevant to me. I’ve often been moved by moments in all sorts of shows; from House to Sopranos to Sex and the City. I relate to them on a human level, don't you? That’s gay enough for me.
I crave the "end of gay:" The day when gay becomes ordinary, an afterthought. Because really, that's where it belongs. A special channel celebrating all that's culturally "gay" screams; "We're **extra**ordinary--because we like dick!" Sigh. It just prolongs our self-imposed balkanization, based on -- what? The fact that we like boys. Balkanize yourself if you like, but please, don't complain when the rest of the world moves on without you, and can't relate to you.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Maybe it would have been nice to hear, you know, his coming-out story. Maybe I could relate to it. Or maybe to hear about a few of those friends who died of AIDS and what they meant to him.

Gee, what was he doing on TV today....that's right, he was promoting something....what was it again....oh yeah, a book! A book that, according to my informed sources, not only talks about his life as a gay man, but also the loss of several of his friends to AIDS, and -- get this -- mentions his partner!

So now if I don't know who someone is ahead of time, I have to do a Google search on everyone who's on TV?

Really, Mal, what I hope you're doing is watching the show/reading the book/hearing the song first, THEN Google-searching for details on the artist.

[Jack Malebranche]

Keith Strong - Thanks!

Mal -

Sounds like y'all's idea of "mainstreaming" is no gay representations in the media whatsoever.

Not really. Just not sad, forced ones. Will and Grace is in syndication. We've got the politically correct flaming queers covered and in heavy rotation. America is well aware that they are here, and queer, and America has more or less gotten used to it.

All of those goofy mainstream dating shows (Next, Elimidate, etc) have homo segments, where the fact that the guys are homos is never an issue. They're just dating like the other guys. MTV's the Real World's token homos are mainstream. The other reality shows with homos are mainstream.

Having a channel to custom serve gay culture to gay people is not mainstream. It is "gaystream." It's pure ghetto. It's saying we need our own special news, our own special shows, our own special...everything. It's promoting a culture, not mainstreaming acceptability of a a sexual preference.

That's pretty much all I have to say about the matter.

Mainstream gay culture makes urban hiphop culture look subtle, nuanced and intellectual. The less of that contrived culture that's promoted, the better, to my mind. As Robbie often says, "your mileage may vary."

[Jack Malebranche]

Oh, and just so someone doesn't accuse me of racism:

"Mainstream gay culture makes country music seem less cliche."

There, that's equality.

[James]

Jack,

Wouldnt accuse you of racism, but urban hiphop culture is subtle. Just depnds where you look (and MTV and BET are not where you are you are going to find anything subtle).

peace

ps: for the record: Cash, Parton, and Williams are not cliches.

[Jamie]

On the Danza thing, Tony was doing what he does with ALL of his guests--namely, talking about what interests HIM. It's his show, and he talks about what he wants to talk about. It's no deeper than that. This is the same guy who had the "hunkiest handyman" contest a while back. Deep introspection is not his forte. Having a gay author on his show is about as controversial as he's going to get, and Tony talked to the guy about what he could relate to--pure Danza. Fifteen years ago would this guy even have been asked to be on the show? I don't think so. And surely his book is better explained by a reading of it than by a quick snippet on the Tony Danza show. The publicity should get more people to read it and become familiar with the issues it addresses--issues which would probably not be done justice on the show.

Personally, I would actually like to see more documentaries which enlighten straight people to the fact that there are many, many, many different types of gay folks. I'd also like to see more coming-out stories on mainstream TV. And while I think Crumbs is just an ok TV show, I like the concept of having the main character be a closeted gay man, if only to help publicize what we all go through in accepting ourselves--(admittedly, the writing on Crumbs needs to vastly improve in order to have the desired effect, but I think the overall concept is a good one.)
I do agree with Mal that some people might be prejudging these premium gay channels a bit. They haven't been out that long, and they're a different marketing paradigm, so I think the formats of Logo, Here, et al, will morph as they grow older. It all depends on what the consumers demand. Since gay men/women are going to be the most likely consumers, the programming is eventually going to reflect what we ask for--and pay for. Supply and demand, people. If you don't like what they show, then write to them indicating what you'd like to see. Petition them for something different.

There are things, though, of interest to the gay community that I think should not be included on mainstream TV. A flurry of programming about white parties and pride parades does not exactly enamor us to our middle-class neighbors, and I'm not sure I'd want my children watching scantily clad men frolic on the beaches of Key West or Provincetown, but there certainly is an audience for it. And premium programming is a perfect medium for that. As well as for romances, documentaries, gay sci-fi--whatever. Ever heard the term "market-driven?"

I'm waiting to hear a "self-loathing" comment now from someone.

[Jamie]

Oh, and Johnny Cash is SO cliché.

[James]

Jamie,

Sure Cash is cliche if all people know about it comes from some Hollywood bio-pic.

peace

[Jamie]

Cash is cliche from growing up around his music and Loretta Lynn's. Why would I bother with watching the movie?

[Patrick]

Rapp's book isn't a memoir that focuses only on his 11-year association with the musical "Rent". His relationship with his mother is equally in focus if not moreso.