CBS Responds to Failing Grade from GLAAD
Every year, GLAAD releases the Network Responsibility Index, a report analyzing LGBT representations of 15 major networks, to coincide with the annual Television Critics Association summer press tour. CBS today
became the first of the five major broadcast networks to present its fall television schedule and CBS President Nina Tassler used the opportunity to address the “Failing” grade the network once again received in the NRI for the overall lack of LGBT representation in its primetime scripted programming.
Per After Elton, Tassler said:
“There were a couple of pilots that we shot this season and a couple of projects in development that unfortunately we didn’t get to pick up. But we are adding a few characters to this season because we are very disappointed in our track record so far. We know we will do better.
We’re going to meet Alicia’s brother on The Good Wife as a gay character. We’re also going to be adding a new character to Rules of Engagement. Jeff and Audrey’s surrogate will be a member of Jeff’s softball team and she’s a lesbian. We’re also going to be recurring a gay character in Bleep My Dad Says. The character Tim Bagley played will be returning this season.
Once you come out of your pilot season disappointed with yourself, you go into the current series season and say “Let’s look for every opportunity to improve the numbers we have represented in the cast so we’re going to do that. And then we’ll continue to focus on that as we go into development season. We’re not happy with ourselves.
As many networks made great strides in LGBT representation this past TV season, CBS has continued to lag behind.
“It is encouraging that CBS shares our disappointment in the network’s lack of gay and transgender representation and we are hopeful that the new characters will help build awareness and understanding of our community among viewers,” said GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios. “After two years of receiving a ‘failing’ grade and a commitment last year to be more inclusive, we hope that CBS President Nina Tassler makes true on this promise to bring the network more in line with the industry standard.’”
Tassler has indeed promised new LGBT characters before, but GLAAD is pleased to see her offer concrete examples of what to expect in the fall 2010 season. GLAAD also looks forward to evaluating and reporting on the quality of those LGBT images.
To read more about GLAAD’s 2009-2010 Network Responsibility Index (NRI), click here.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
You're not catering to me damnit!
Everyone knows that broadcasters are in the business of making money . If they can further your cause AND make money, they will. Believe you me, they most certainly will. Until then, you do have other stations to go to until you do make them money.
If it turns out to not be about the money and catering to things people want, I'm calling Ferrari in the morning to complain that they don't have a pick up, even though I have ten other companies that can provide them for me.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
That is kinda the point. By highlighting their lack of gay friendly programing GLAAD threatens their cash flow (because it hurts CBS's public image, and thus can hurt their ad revenue).
The Network Responsibility Index implies that they consider the networks, that don't have enough gay representation, irresponsible. Like it's somehow the mission of the networks to help the gay cause by showing them in a positive light.
It's not irresponsible for a company to avoid losing money , or even make money. If it's done with this in mind, too bad. All of these companies watch what shows make money and why they make money. If they fall behind, they will conform.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
They are failing to portray homosexuals in an adequate manner... that is the purpose of the rating. GLAAD looks at how homosexuals are represented in various networks, then issues a grade based on how the reviewers find that the network represents homosexuals. The network is free to ignore, or to make changes, as they see fit.
There is nothing legally biding about the grade, the network can just ignore what GLAAD says. However they won't... because GLAAD has some muscle in the corporate environment . Generally corporations don't like bad press... and this is bad press.
On a more ethical note... since CBS is a broadcast network it uses the public air waves, which are owned by the people of the USA and leased to the various networks. As such CBS has some responsibility to use those air waves in way that is at least somewhat respectful towards the population in which they lease their airwaves from.
Further... the notion that corporations are somehow clear to make money in any way that they see fit has led to a whole host of issues with our society . The corporation (and more importantly the people inside the corporation) does not have free license to make money in any way that they see fit. With a medium as powerful as TV it is perfectly acceptable to see them as having an ethical requirement to portray the various minorities that make up this nation in a positive light.
I understand that there is a responsibility to not show people in a bad light if the airwaves are rented. That is very much different than expecting that someone that rents those airwaves to act in a way that causes them to lose money. It's not PBS were talking about.
I have butted heads with you, and others, on gay issues . The first and foremost point in all of my stands is that particular groups expect treatment that other groups don't get. The same groups that want special treatment in tv coverage are the same ones that want laws against people that have something against them on the books.
Take "my people". Name ONE show on tv today that has a christian character that is shown in a positive light. They are usually shown as a nerdy person who doesn't quite get it. While there are those that fit that bill. most that I know aren't nerdy and do get it but choose not to live it. Are they crying that they are portrayed that way? No.
Take my "other people". How many times are the Irish portrayed as drunks? It may be passed off as humorous, but it's bad lighting as well. The same goes for the Italians(violent), Germans(harsh), Jews(money hungry).
No group seems to get the treatment that gays and blacks get even though every non-english people that have come to this country, or were here when they got here, have been subject to ill treatment. I don't see one freaking american indian(my people as well) in a single episode of one series. Granted I don't see them all, but I see enough of them.
It's time to get over yourselves. You're just as screwed as everyone else.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
But they are not demanding special treatment. They are producing a ranking on how they feel the networks portray members of their group. No lawsuits have been put forward, no bills have been advanced that would in any way compel TV networks to portray gay characters in a certain way.
GLAAD is doing what you just did, voice their opinion about how their "group" is portrayed by the major networks. The difference is that GLAAD represents a sizable block of people. What they say matters because it is widely heard and widely repeated... It is an image issue.
If you feel that Christians are not portrayed in the best light then you can do what GLAAD did, and if the group you build has enough weight in the media then your rating may have a similar impact.