What is visibility really?

Chris Crain had an interesting post about the GLAAD awards of mainstream media companies carrying gay content. I think it is an interesting take on how to promote gay visibility in the sphere of straight-oriented entertainment.

GLAAD wants to promote positive gay content in the mainstream media and rewards those who take risks by showing positive messages about gay life, notably to the exclusion of those who have produced and distributed the program and that are "gay".

I'm not sure that excluding anyone from quality content is a good idea. The rationale, as Chris pointed out, is that mainstream media is not purely owned and managed by gay oriented companies - thus they should be recognized for taking a "risk". I salute CBS/Viacom (where CBS was recently spun off in a complex deal from its Viacom parent) for subsidizing Logo. The initial support of Logo by a large and veteran media company is great. But it is a business decision that is based upon the fragmentation of the media driven by cable and that fragmentation allows the company to offer a niche product while not offering this content in the larger distribution outlets. Viacom offers content on Logo that makes money and targets a niche that advertisers value - gay folk have lots of disposable income. Companies that purvey liquor have exploited this angle for a long time. Go to a gay bar and see the promos for beers in the form of neon signs and poster - do liquor companies get a reward for making a good business decision? Will GLAAD give Anheuser-Busch a reward for content in a neon sign or a poster? Will Absolut? This is a hard call.

I bring this up as a point to reiterate what Chris Crain has thoughtfully discussed with regard to GLAAD's position to reward mainstream media for positive gay content. If a mainstream company sees an angle to make a profit, in a considerate way from the perspective of the gay community, perhaps that should be rewarded. But I get uncomfortable when you start rewarding who provides the content and not necessarily the content itself. If Ang Lee was gay and distributed Brokeback through an indie outlet, would Brokeback be discounted by GLAAD? Rewarding mainstream promotion of gay content is ostensibly good at the superficial level - but when the distribution of that content may be through a niche subsidiary (i.e. Logo), can you tease apart the pure intention from the profit driven intention? If Viacom gets a reward for content that is funneled through a gay oriented subsidiary, is that actually progress? I don't know - just a point to consider.

I think that it might be divisive because gay content in the mainstream is very compartmentalized. Will and Grace is a good example. Should that show have gotten an award? I say yes for Karen and no for Jack and Will. But I am gay - I respond to something different than the straight crowd might.

I'm particularly interested in this after my trip to the Midwest where I think that Will and Grace might be more damaging than beneficial. I was deep in the red zone and I saw no evidence of gay anything anywhere. It is similar to the black struggle for equality in the mainstream- can Amos and Andy actually make a difference? I guess perhaps. Did the Jeffersons? Did Diahann Carroll? I posit that the mainstream content took awhile to portray black complexity fully and it was a long and tortured progression - and there are some who might say that black culture is still not presented cleanly in the mainstream media. My bus rides in the morning with a nearly all black ridership has been VERY revealing on the disparity. Ought the gay struggle follow the same path - allowing gay content to be diluted and that dilution to be propagated in its imperfect and stereotyped form?

I'm a fan of good content being rewarded for being good content. I'd be disturbed if "Just Jack" wins an award because it is on NBC. Does "Boys Don't Cry" or "Brokeback Mountain" become more important to GLAAD because the content is distributed by a mainstream company.

Not an easy call - but one we, as gay folk, should think about.