Gay channel

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by zendawn

Please don't missquote me. Representation of a minority is not the same as positive discrimination.

Which takes me back to a post I made earlier. Why not just ensure gays are better represented in mainstream media?

And I've already said that just because ONE employee of NTL says they are not homophobic, that doesnt mean that the people at the top aren't.

One employee who is better placed to know what is going on @ ntl than either of us..

[zendawn]

Oh and while i'm on my high horse (for I know I am) why does a really crap channel like Men & Motors get channel space? It's not a premium channel and I doubt it has that high an audience?
Men & motors is an insult to inteligent men and panders to the base interests of the hetero male.

[Nikko]

I am sure ntl (corporately or on an individual level) are not homophobic or discriminatory.

Any special interest audience are free to petition any provider for specific content.

Given that cable/satellite broadcasters are not public licence fee beneficiaries and therefore commercial entities, then the petitioned level of subscription would need to be commercially viable.

I deliberately avoid the term 'minority' and substitute 'special interest'

I am sure if enough followers of (for example) 'advanced techniques in macrame and crochet patterns in blue silk' pooled their rescources, then a 2 minute slot in a generic lifestyle programme once a quarter could become a dedicated channel.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by scastle

Which takes me back to a post I made earlier. Why not just ensure gays are better represented in mainstream media?
..

Oh come off it...
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?

Just one, thats not too much to ask for, is it?
And not just cuz its economical to do it.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Nikko

I am sure ntl (corporately or on an individual level) are not homophobic or discriminatory.

Any special interest audience are free to petition any provider for specific content.

Given that cable/satellite broadcasters are not public licence fee beneficiaries and therefore commercial entities, then the petitioned level of subscription would need to be commercially viable.

I deliberately avoid the term 'minority' and substitute 'special interest'

I am sure if enough followers of (for example) 'advanced techniques in macrame and crochet patterns in blue silk' pooled their rescources, then a 2 minute slot in a generic lifestyle programme once a quarter could become a dedicated channel.

Ahh but there you are so wrong, being gay isnt a special interest, its a way of life and equating it with croching just shows the amount of misunderstanding due to lack of media coverage.
Gays are a minority, thats not being PC or using positive discrimination, its a fact.
And minorities need fair coverage in the media.
My argument being that minorities can never be economically viable compared to majorities.

[Nikko]

Originally Posted by zendawn

Ahh but there you are so wrong, being gay isnt a special interest, its a way of life and equating it with croching just shows the amount of misunderstanding due to lack of media coverage.
Gays are a minority, thats not being PC or using positive discrimination, its a fact.
And minorities need fair coverage in the media.
My argument being that minorities can never be economically viable compared to majorities.

I cannot argue with that.

I am not unsympathetic.

I was not making an equation.

But if thats the argument, does it not render the whole thread rather pointless?

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Nikko

But if thats the argument, does it not render the whole thread rather pointless?

No that's my argument not the thread starters one.

'My argument is that if gays are in a minority. Then how are they expected to get a fair representation if the only way they can get their own channel is by becoming rich enough to pay for one. Being a minority would mean they would have to raise more money per person than a hetero person would have to.'

The other reason I think that gays need a channel for their own, is because of the discrimination that has been going on for too many years and can only be redressed by a little saturation from the other side.

[Russ]

Fight fire with fire, you mean?

[Nikko]

Originally Posted by zendawn

No that's my argument not the thread starters one

'My argument is that if gays are in a minority. Then how are they expected to get a fair representation if the only way they can get their own channel is by becoming rich enough to pay for one. Being a minority would mean they would have to raise more money per person than a hetero person would have to.'

The other reason I think that gays need a channel for their own, is because of the discrimination that has been going on for too many years and can only be redressed by a little saturation from the other side.

I think that answers the thread starter's question. I am not taking issue, or picking a row - I really do sympathise - the world is not a fair place.

Maybe someone high up in channel selection will take all this on board - but I do not have a solution - and its bed time.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Fight fire with fire, you mean?

Well I wouldnt call a gay related channel 'fire' in the same way I'd call kidnapping and hanging someone on a fence after beating them near to death, fire.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by zendawn

Well I wouldnt call a gay related channel 'fire' in the same way I'd call kidnapping and hanging someone on a fence after beating them near to death, fire.

Neither would I. But there is no such thing as positive discrimination. It's like saying because women have been opressed by men for so many years, it justifies women treating men like dirt.

Unless of course I've totally misread your intentions, after all, it's 2:36am and I'm knackard

[zendawn]

The link below is why we need a gay channel.

http://www.uua.org/news/hatecrime/globe.html

[Russ]

Originally Posted by zendawn

The link below is why we need a gay channel.

http://www.uua.org/news/hatecrime/globe.html

So if there was a dedicated gay channel, all that wouldn't have happened?? Wishful thinking perhaps?

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Neither would I. But there is no such thing as positive discrimination. It's like saying because women have been opressed by men for so many years, it justifies women treating men like dirt.

Unless of course I've totally misread your intentions, after all, it's 2:36am and I'm knackard

Well i've already said its not positive discrimination.
Also how do you equate a channel about gay lifestyle with women treating men like dirt?
Gay programing doesnt mean taking the mick out of heteros.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Russ D

So if there was a dedicated gay channel, all that wouldn't have happened?? Wishful thinking perhaps?

No not NEVER happen, but happen LESS.