Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zendawn
As an anti capitalist, my main argument for a gay channel is not the issue itself (of which I'm sympathetic) but that minority representation shouldnt be dependant on econimic viability but a social responsibility.
|
I know it has been said before, but if such a channel shouldn't be dependant on economic vialbility, but social responsibility, shouldn't it be financed by the Licence Fee? After all the point of the licence fee is to provide quality television without having to worry about the viewing figures (although the BBC is obsessed with viewing figures).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zendawn
If there are channels for children (CBBC etc), men (men and motors), women (LivingTV originally), even channel for scifi fans etc, why not one for gays?
|
All of the markets you mentioned above are possibly bigger than the "gay" market.
And sorry, I can't offer any other excuse apart from it being about whether the channel is economical or not, because I believe the reasons behind NTL not carrying this channel ARE economical (whether it is NTL deciding not to carry the channel because they wouldn't get enough subscriptions, or whether the channel itself decided not to go to NTL because of the carriage fees demanded).
Bear in mind that Sky is quite possibly cheaper, as all they do is rent the channel an EPG slot (and possibly encryption). The Channel has to arrange it's own uplink. As Sky is cheaper, it's possible that Gay TV only had enough money for Sky and couldn't afford the carriage fees for cable.
And just to make it clear, I am not against any gay channel (or any specialist channel) appearing on NTL