Gay channel

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by wheeliebin

Exactly........i mean whatever next .....Channels for people who like football, fishing, pop music,asian music, country music, culture, nature, sex, Cricket, Boxing, Wrestling ??????????????????????????????????

Its a dangerous path to follow letting everyone have all these specialist channels.

Being a pedant (why dont we have our own channel too) but why is it DANGEROUS to have so many specialist channels? Will people stop procreating, will it be the end of society? There more the better I say.

[Tristan]

I think he was being sarcastic....

(or ironic, depending on how kind you want to be )

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Tristan

I think he was being sarcastic....

(or ironic, depending on how kind you want to be )

Oh and there was me being sarcastic too

[Rillington]

Can we get back to the subject in hand please? (Why these always turn into whether gay is right or wrong always does disappoint me).

Sam came on here to say that ntl did speak to two gay channels a while back but both did not want ntl carriage. There are only three gay channels (of which GTV will be the third) and it is disappointing that these channels do not want to be on ntl.

the also said there was no 'evidence' as to why no gay channel has ever appeared on ntl. Whilst I clearly accept the point that ntl cab't FORCE a channel to launch on its system, these gay channels must be about the only onese not to want to launch on cable. I guess I draw my conclusions from the channel line-ups as they stand.

I would be curious as to why The Dating Channel's gay version is not there in partic. I did email them once about this but never got a reply. I might remail them again and also ask Gaydar Radio and GTV about the sitiuation with regard to ntl and, if I get a reply, I'll post the jist of the reply in here.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Rillington

Can we get back to the subject in hand please? (Why these always turn into whether gay is right or wrong always does disappoint me).
.

No ones arguing about whether gay is right or wrong, we're arguing whether its a minority channel or not, and whether minority channels should be taken up by broadcasters as a right or not?

[Rillington]

Clearly a channel aimed at a minority would be considered a minority channel.

It is up to broadcasters to choose (or not) to serve that minority and they willonly do so if they think they can make money out of it.

Thus far, only three broadcasters have chosen to do this - The Dating Channel (through Gaydate TV), Q Soft (the company behind Gaydar Radio) and the people who have set up GTV and if one really makes a success of it then I am sure others will try to emulate this (as has happened with Asian channels - ZEE clearly makes loads of money in the UK therefore other broadcasters have set up Asian channels).

Time will tell whether GTV can work anmd it will prove if there is a demand for TV aimed at the gay community.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Rillington

Clearly a channel aimed at a minority would be considered a minority channel.
.

I think that's what is called a Tautology(sp?) it doesnt answer the question on wether Gays are a minority in the tv channels sense. Scifi has its own channel, dance music and heavy metal have their own channels, etc how do low viewer numbers have to be, before a channel is considered a minority.
If people who wanted a gay channel paid a premium similar to asian channels, would they make the same amount of money?

[asdf]

Originally Posted by zendawn

Well that's a whole nother thread, but just cuz NTL is a business doesnt mean they can shirt their social responsibilities too. Banks and shops are businesses too but with the disability discrimination act they have to make shops wheel chair accessable.

But being gay isn't a discrimination. Gay people, those that want equality, shouldn't expect people to act differently around them or to treat them specially. All they want to do is to be treated NORMALLY, like anyone else would.

After asking a few of my gay relatives and friends about this I found out that they'd feel quite discriminated AGAINST if they were considered a social responsibilty. I think you'll find that the majority of gay people would like to see a gay channel, but realise that if the demand is not there then it wont be launched. Just as I realise that the demand isn't there for a 24/7 techie channel.

But, alas, the eternal question still hasn't be answered. What exactly is on these so called "gay lifestyle" channels? Because from what I've heard the majority of gay people have found it quite patronising and gimmicky.

*shrugs*

[asdf]

As for the Asian channels debate. In my home town of Leicester there is a very large proportion of asian people who quite like the Asian channels, in fact I believe they brought out a special package at some point with reduced phone calls etc. This had a great takeup and is thus quite profitable for ntl to carry them.

If there was a lot of French people in the UK then you'd find ntl carrying a lot more french channels.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by asdf

But being gay isn't a discrimination. Gay people, those that want equality, shouldn't expect people to act differently around them or to treat them specially. All they want to do is to be treated NORMALLY, like anyone else would.

After asking a few of my gay relatives and friends about this I found out that they'd feel quite discriminated AGAINST if they were considered a social responsibilty. I think you'll find that the majority of gay people would like to see a gay channel, but realise that if the demand is not there then it wont be launched. Just as I realise that the demand isn't there for a 24/7 techie channel.

But, alas, the eternal question still hasn't be answered. What exactly is on these so called "gay lifestyle" channels? Because from what I've heard the majority of gay people have found it quite patronising and gimmicky.

*shrugs*

Ahh thats patronising crap too. Gays are in a minority and wether they like it or not they are descriminated against in terms of representation in the media.
I'm not relating being gay with being disabled, I'm relating it with being in a minority and thus under repesented.
I'm also saying that minority programing should not be dependant on the need to make a profit, as I have said before. Minority means a smaller population than a majority, so by its nature a minority channel will have fewwer viewers than any other channel.
Also being in a minority is not the same as saying that gays are abnormal in the derogative of the word. Of course they are abnormal in the sense that they are a minority. So what I'm trying to say is that a Gay specific channel is not giving the special needs, its just redressing the balance of representation. After all mainstream channels have felt the need to create gay zones in their programing, like C4's Pink Triangle season.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by asdf

As for the Asian channels debate. In my home town of Leicester there is a very large proportion of asian people who quite like the Asian channels, in fact I believe they brought out a special package at some point with reduced phone calls etc. This had a great takeup and is thus quite profitable for ntl to carry them.

If there was a lot of French people in the UK then you'd find ntl carrying a lot more french channels.

So the only reason Asians get to have their own channel is because they are rich?? or have enough money to buy a specific channel?

My point again is that channels for minorities shouldnt be dependant on economic viabilities.

[Tristan]

Originally Posted by zendawn

So the only reason Asians get to have their own channel is because they are rich?? or have enough money to buy a specific channel?

My point again is that channels for minorities shouldnt be dependant on economic viabilities.

No, that was the point. NTL put together a package featuring Asian channels, and reduced call costs to the subcontinent, for less money than it would have cost to get them separately, to try to appeal to asian customers (which makes sense when you look at the demographics for NTL-connected cities).

As to funding for minority channels, I couldn't disagree more. Regulation to prevent discrimination, yes. Enforced funding, no. If a gay channel, satanist channel or whatever else want to launch, then fine, but I don't see why they should be given special treatment.

But then I'm just anti 'positive' discrimination in all regards. In my opinion, it's contradictory to the notion of equalty...

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Tristan

As to funding for minority channels, I couldn't disagree more. Regulation to prevent discrimination, yes. Enforced funding, no. If a gay channel, satanist channel or whatever else want to launch, then fine, but I don't see why they should be given special treatment.

But then I'm just anti 'positive' discrimination in all regards. In my opinion, it's contradictory to the notion of equalty...

Ahh the cry of the 'ist be they racist or homophobist. Make them fight their way up the economic ladder so they can eventually pay for their own channel, even tho the economic ladder is biased against them making their way up the greasy pole. (no pun intended)

It's not special treatment to redress the balance against discrimination.
The same way blacks were and probably still were under represented in the media and had to fight their way to get seen on tv. You don't see 'The fresh Prince of Bel end' on tv do you? But you do see the 'Fresh Prince of Bel Air'. And it wasn't just cuz blacks could pay for their tv, it was cause anti descrimination laws helped them get on tv more.

P.s. No I'm not saying your a homophob, I'm saying you've been brainwashed by the homophobic capitalists, in to believing that minorities should use economic routes to representation, rather than social.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by zendawn

Ahh the cry of the 'ist be they racist or homophobist. Make them fight their way up the economic ladder so they can eventually pay for their own channel, even tho the economic ladder is biased against them making their way up the greasy pole. (no pun intended)

It's not special treatment to redress the balance against discrimination.
The same way blacks were and probably still were under represented in the media and had to fight their way to get seen on tv. You don't see 'The fresh Prince of Bel end' on tv do you? But you do see the 'Fresh Prince of Bel Air'. And it wasn't just cuz blacks could pay for their tv, it was cause anti descrimination laws helped them get on tv more.

P.s. No I'm not saying your a homophob, I'm saying you've been brainwashed by the homophobic capitalists, in to believing that minorities should use economic routes to representation, rather than social.

Discrimination (even "positive" discrimination) is still bad.

Now, to get this thread back on track, Sam B said

Originally Posted by Sam B

The channels also have to actually want to launch on ntl. We spoke with two gay channels last year who didn't want to launch on cable at that time.

Now, isn't it a bit academic to be discussing whether NTL is homophobic or not, when these channels do not want to launch on Cable?

(post 47 if anyone is interested).

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by scastle

Discrimination (even "positive" discrimination) is still bad.

Now, to get this thread back on track, Sam B said


Now, isn't it a bit academic to be discussing whether NTL is homophobic or not, when these channels do not want to launch on Cable?

(post 47 if anyone is interested).

Please don't missquote me. Representation of a minority is not the same as positive discrimination. Plenty of racists used that argument to keep the ethnic minority down in the early days of racism. And it is keeping on thread, the title say Gay channel, not gay channel blah blah blah.

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.

The economic argument is the same as the positive descriminatiion one, it keeps the minorities down even longer.