Gay channel

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by zendawn

No not NEVER happen, but happen LESS.

Wouldn't better integration on mainstream television be more effective?
And I don't mean the "token" gay character in a soap, but have them portrayed properly as a person rather than as their sexual preferance, you know, rather than having the big shock gay kiss, just have characters who happen to be gay but a big deal isn't made out of it.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by gazmanc

Gay tv viewing I would imagine deal with gay issues that are not given any airtime at the moment. For example issues like health advice for young gay men and woman, a portal for young gay people to help them come to terms with there sexualality, and how best to deal with telling friends and family, advice about safe areas we can go out and be safe. I wish I would have such a valuble tool when I was coming out. It was a very scary time for me, but i got through it ok. Not all my friends had such a good time of it.

Another good reason for having a gay channel rather than just mainstream programming

[Chris W]

Somebody should write to the bbc about it... after all they are supposed to spend the licensing fee on what is demanded by consumers... so give it a try!

hmm.... i wonder what they would call it though....

[andygrif]

How interesting that a subject about one TV channel aimed at less than 10% of the population can spark 12 pages of discussion!

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001

Exactly where do you draw the line?

The line is drawn based on what the demand will be. If all 6 million of the UK's gay/lesbian/bi population would tune into a Gay TV type channel, then there might be sufficient demand. NTL does not have enough coverage of that 6 million people to make the channel viable for distribution due to the fees that ntl would charge the channel. And that is just assuming that every one of the 6 million would tune in! More likely would be less than 10% of that 6 million.

I think something important needs to be said here...this has nothing to do whether the channel is aimed at the gay population or not, it's to do with basic economics. Will we make enough money to pay to pay the ntl fees. Chances are that they won't, which is why the channel isn't on ntl.

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001

You DO NOT need Gay TV programmes, it'll end up being trashy eurocrap as usual.

I don't think any of us are in any position to decide whether we need any TV programme. We do not need Eastenders, we don't need Channel 4, in fact we don't NEED television at all. But some of us like watching some programmes on Channel 4 - so it's nothing to do with whether we need it or not.

We all have choices, with regards to what we watch. I choose not to watch God TV, but I respect Russ' right to do so. I choose not to watch the football, but I respect people's rights to do so.

None of us, gay or straight, have the right to say that there should not be any channel on any platform.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by andygrif

I think something important needs to be said here...this has nothing to do whether the channel is aimed at the gay population or not, it's to do with basic economics. Will we make enough money to pay to pay the ntl fees. Chances are that they won't, which is why the channel isn't on ntl.
.

The point that is taking up most of the pages is not that the channel is being discriminated against because of its remit ie gay. It's that because gays are in a minority perhaps 6million (10%) they can never be economically viable compared to other larger minorities, not sure how big the deaf population is in comparison.

So assuming that gays need some sort of media representation to balance out the many years of discrimination, how are they gonna get it if not through some sort of social intervention. ie broadcasters made to carry certain minority channels by regulation.

The other point then is how do you define a minority?

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.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by zendawn

The point that is taking up most of the pages is not that the channel is being discriminated against because of its remit ie gay. It's that because gays are in a minority perhaps 6million (10%) they can never be economically viable compared to other larger minorities, not sure how big the deaf population is in comparison.

So assuming that gays need some sort of media representation to balance out the many years of discrimination, how are they gonna get it if not through some sort of social intervention. ie broadcasters made to carry certain minority channels by regulation.

The other point then is how do you define a minority?

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 think separate is rarely equal. If programs incorporated some more gay themes/programs using realistic characters and proper proportionality there wouldn't be a need for the separate channel.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by 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.

Actually, having seen that, I have wondered it as well. I can only assume Granada are willing to pay NTL to carry it, and Granada aren't worried about lack of viewers.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by downquark1

I think separate is rarely equal. If programs incorporated some more gay themes/programs using realistic characters and proper proportionality there wouldn't be a need for the separate channel.

Ahhh go on, let them have their own channel, it's not gonna hurt anyone. If you don't wanna watch it, you could flick quickly past it, or use the channel lock system.

I'd gladly give up Men and Motors for them to have the channel space, even instead of FX, which I really want. They could use the BUY NTL channel, that's definitly a waste of space.

[Stuart]

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).

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

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by zendawn

Ahhh go on, let them have their own channel, it's not gonna hurt anyone. If you don't wanna watch it, you could flick quickly past it, or use the channel lock system.

I'm not against it in principle, I'm just saying we already have programs on general entertainment channels which are aimed at minorities, I don't see why the it is so necessary that it be separate. But it seems that channels are becoming more specialised these days so maybe I'm being old fashioned.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by zendawn

I'd gladly give up Men and Motors for them to have the channel space, even instead of FX, which I really want. They could use the BUY NTL channel, that's definitly a waste of space.

I'd give up Men and Motors for a Gay channel. Almost any channel infact. Even a blank screen , or, shock horror, an extra shopping channel. Not that NTL needs any more shopping channels..

[asdf]

I'd love for their to be a gay channel, but until they pay to be carried on cable they aren't going to be on cable, simple as.

Unless of course they want to be a charity?

[gohadz]

Originally Posted by downquark1

I'm not against it in principle, I'm just saying we already have programs on general entertainment channels which are aimed at minorities, I don't see why the it is so necessary that it be separate. But it seems that channels are becoming more specialised these days so maybe I'm being old fashioned.

I am actually seeing the need now for this type of channel (and as someone said you could just lock the channel). Although this is a bad example, its kinda like gamers wanting a channel dedicated to games on ntl, i want it, other people want it, but some people will see it as a waste of space.

But isn't what digital tv is about, more channel space so the 'minorities' can be catered for?

(PS doing my own research last night its around 1 in 6 are homosexual, thats a lot of people for a minority!)

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by 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.

oh, right, so - it's not ok to have a channel that 'panders to the base interests of the hetero male', but you still want a channel that panders to homosexuals..

Get over it - gay channels don't want to get carried by ntl, and I don't think right now it would be economical for ntl to carry them anyway (and NO, they are not a charity - they're in it for the money).....

There's loads of gay issues on television anyway - in all the soaps, in plenty of films - I love that Justin interior designer fellow. Brilliant.

What exactly is it you'd get on a gay channel that you wouldn't from any other channel - do gays hold there cutlery differently or something? Do you have another language, or currency etc?? No. You don't. At the end of the day the only difference between being gay or straight is the gender of partner you choose. I'm bloody sure there'd be uproar if I started campaigning for 'straight' channnel......

[Macca]

Originally Posted by andygrif

How interesting that a subject about one TV channel aimed at less than 10% of the population can spark 12 pages of discussion!

Particularly when the original question was answered after around 1 page. I guess that's what happens when certain people feel the need to kidnap the thread for their own needs and to vent their own concerns.