Activity 1
In the media industry has evolved over the past decades in regards to the LGBTQ community yet in my personal opinion there's still a way to go until I could say that they're represented in a positive way. When I first set out writing this response, I asked people what they thought, what did they think of how the LGBTQ community has been represented in the media. The first response I had believed that the community has been hindered by the belief that they're 'shoved' down peoples throats (exact quote: they're painted very negatively with phrases like "shoving" their ideas down their throats when sexuality is infact how you feel) what this means is that people believe that the community is being 'forced' into peoples lives, criticisms of modern media believe that shows and films only include characters to 'pander' to the LGBTQ community. I believe this to be an unfair and unfavourable response, as people who make these points often don't realise that even today, LGBTQ characters only made up for 10% of the characters in the current season which proves that despite strides being made there's still a lot more that media companies can do to accurately and fairly represent the community at hand. It's unfair that the LGBTQ community isn't represented the same as the heterosexual community as regardless of sexuality, we're all still people and it's disheartening that there's still a lot of progress to be made.
A prominent example is the treatment of George Michael, the former singer from Wham!, during the time Michael was in the public eye he was arrested for 'engaging in a lewd act' following a sting operation by police, this occurred in 1998 and at the time it was big news that the news organisations milked for everything that they could. The Sun, a newspaper widely disliked in the UK had a front-page mocking the incident, with the headline being 'Zip Me up Before you go-go' a reference to the song 'Wake Up Before you go-go' by Wham which perceived the act in an almost comedic tone, the Sun was treating George Michael's sexuality, something that took a vast toll on his mental health as nothing more than a headline which showed just how little they cared for the effect that it would have on Michael. Michael had suffered with depression following the loss of his mother and his partner to aids which is something that the Sun didn't take into account, which shows just how unfairly the community had been represented, you wouldn't see this sort of headline if it were a heterosexual person that had been arrested for the act Michael had, there was still inequality and media coverage proved it. It proves just how much the LGBTQ community suffered, this headline was only around 20 years ago which is still relatively modern, it shows that the community back then were exploited and made a mockery out of and were seen as nothing but money makers. Another example that was even before the Michael incident made aware to me via the stimulus material caused much controversy and was even spoken about in Parliament.
The show Eastenders made history as in 1987 it aired the first on-screen kiss between the characters Barry Clark and Collin Russell. Immediately the show was drowned in complaints from disgruntled viewers with many voicing their disgust at the kiss (with homosexuality only being decriminalised 20 years prior), again, the media jumped onto this and further fueled the outrage that was being felt throughout the country, The Sun had been the paper that voiced their anger the most with them writing articles that jokingly referred to the show as 'Eastbenders' and before this, the gutter paper had argued against the inclusion of gay characters (Bender is a derogatory term used by homophobes). Parliament had questioned whether the show was right in airing this kiss as at the time AIDs was sweeping through the UK, with the horrid implication that the LGBTQ community are the main 'carriers' of the disease, which wasn't the case, in contrast to the previous reference it shows the hostility that the community faced, there was so much rampant homophobia that even a simple scene of 2 men kissing (with the kiss itself being a simple forehead kiss) was met with hysteria, people couldn't believe that the LGBTQ community were allowed to be represented on such a well-known television show and the disgust that they felt was not criticism, it was rampant abuse, which only shows the hardships that this community has had to endure for decades. As imagine if you're a member of the LGBTQ community during the 80's in the UK and seeing your sexuality so despised and hated that your own government seeing it as 'inappropriate', calling this unfair would be the understatement of the century. Luckily the attitude to the community has vastly improved and vile homophobic news outlets have gradually died out (Unfortunately, the Sun are still in business) showing that the public won't stand for this intolerance anymore. These two examples are a key point as to why there needs to be more representation in the modern media as even today there are still people (who're a minority now) who still spout hateful abuse towards the LGBTQ community.
The sad thing is that the LGBTQ are people just like us, and realising how they were treated not too long shows that we need to do more, as referenced earlier many 'critics' believe that the LGBTQ community are being forced onto us, I respectfully disagree. The reason why it may seem 'forced' is the simple fact that there was rarely any representation for them to begin with, and giving them more representation isn't just pandering, it's showing the equality that they've deserved all long and the representation nowadays is making up for the past, which even still isn't nearly enough. Luckily the public attitude has changed, we're a more accepting society and there's now a degree of equality.
Activity 2
Whilst writing you come across an abundance of sources, some accurate and some not-so-accurate and in any academic work you need to verify the authenticity of them and verify if these sources support the argument that you're making.
In Activity 1 I made reference to multiple sources. And I needed credible sources in order to make the point I was making more reliable. My first main source was The Independent, a UK news organization which provided the sources about George Michael which I cited. With prior knowledge about the UK newspaper industry, I've known and trusted most of what the Independent has said for quite a long time, however, just because I think they're reliable doesn't always mean that they are accurate. Realising this, I conducted some research into the apparent 'bias' of the Independent, to do this I used various independent 'fact-checking' sites which verify whether a media group has a bias or not. The reason that this is important is that a media organization need to be neutral, they cannot be perceived to favour one group over another as the entire reason we have news organizations is that the public can be informed on all the goings-on in the world and if an organization is seen to be lying then you could question everything they say. After research on multiple websites, they all concluded that the Independent was verified to have 'high' factual reporting, meaning that we can trust what they have to say meaning the source I quoted is reliable and can be quoted in my answer. Also, The Independent is a paper that isn't afraid to point out the rampant homophobia in the media today, showing that they're an ally of the LGBTQ community, meaning that not only are they seen to be factually correct, but not discriminatory meaning again that there's no underlying political agenda at stake. Despite it being a secondary source it's clear that there's positive intent in their reporting, they're not trying to dehumanize the LGBTQ community, they're writing the truth with a neutral stance.
Furthermore, I cited a blog entitled 'Gay in the 80s' which is a blog that I took particular interest in when I stumbled upon it. With it being a blog it's at a disadvantage, blogs are independent meaning it's usually run by a single person or volunteers. Blogs have an advantage as they're not tied down like newspapers are, papers have to abide by certain guidelines whereas blogs have free-reign to post whatever they'd like to, blogs can be used as an informational tool, meaning that they can inform the public whilst also being educational. The papers have a duty to inform but not educate, making blogs just as beneficial as papers if not better. And a blog allows readers to have discussions, allowing people to express their opinions and have discussions showing that for the reader blogs are a better source because as referenced above, there's no need to follow certain guidelines and being able to print whatever they see fit. Compared to the mainstream organizations, they haven't got anywhere near the resources a professional news organization has which makes it a lot more difficult to write, as reporters have the advantage of multiple sources, multiple reporters and a lot more influence than a blog, a lack of resources can be an issue but a well-written blog can rival even the highest quality of paper. Regardless, a blog can also run into the same problems a paper can have, however, I find it important that this blog, in particular, is run by a person who has had experience with the exact topic that their blog is about, as a blog on LGBTQ issues it's almost a given that the author has experience of the issues that the community faces. The reason that this source is credible is that most of their posts come from experience when they write about the issues they do it comes from years of oppression and a goal to make the LGBTQ community better represented in the media, their blog is doing this each and every day and that's why I feel that this source is one that can be relied on.
Activity 3
The conclusion that I've come to during my research is that the statement that 'The lack of LGBTQ characters in mainstream media, and reliance on outdated stereotypes, does not represent the LGBTQ community in a fair and balanced way' is very accurate and I support it completely. My conclusions are: that the community is actively discriminated against for their sexuality despite it being irrelevant, people should only be judged on their personality and attitude, not their sexuality.
The LGBTQ community I believe are discriminated against in media coverage as the majority of stories about the community is usually bias against them, I've used real-life examples showing just how rigorous the media are in writing hatred against the community with the media referring to the LGBTQ community as 'benders' and multiple other derogatory comments. Although it can be argued that the attitude to the community has improved, there's still elements of discrimination in the media as in honest opinion there are still reporters that cannot accept that the community is being allowed the same rights as heterosexuals. Even in the 21st century there are still many examples of rampant homophobia and discrimination in society today. In researching, I unintentionally came across another example of blatant discrimination from a recent tweet of some man getting a match on Tinder only to see that his match is a trans woman, he decided to post a tweet of him being happy he had a match, but then looked upset that his match was a trans woman. This tweet was a prime example of the rampant discrimination that trans people face, the poster of the tweet instead of ignoring someone he wasn't interested in decided to mock and vilify someone to thousands of people online simply because of their gender, and thousands of people retweeted and liked so it shows that there are still people out there who find discrimination funny, these people think that it's a big joke but they don't realise the hardships the LGBTQ community go through on a daily basis, there are countries that consider trans people outcasts, there are countries where you could get executed if you are LGBTQ, so for people to make jokes when there are still countries that despite the LGBTQ community is extremely disheartening and it furthers the need for more representation. As long as the LGBTQ still suffers in certain nations, the more the fight needs to go on, and representation is ultimately a small step but it's necessary to gain the respect that the LGBTQ community deserves.
My main point is simple but it's still an issue, the problem with modern media's representation of the LGBTQ community is that the media somehow how trouble with treating them the same as heterosexuals, despite us all being human the media still look down on anyone not straight and it's incredibly confusing and it makes the LGBTQ community feel ignored. An example is how the media try and claim that straight people are 'oppressed' which simply isn't true, like referenced earlier, members of the LGBTQ community can be killed/jailed for their sexuality which is something that isn't a problem for straight people. The point is that anytime the LGBTQ community tries to bring attention to their issues the media ultimately assume that they're saying only their community matters, that's why the media always bring in straight people when talking about LGBTQ issues because they wrongfully assume that the LGBTQ community say that being straight doesn't matter, which proves the media's covert anti-LGBTQ stance, because they can't even talk about their own issues without something irrelevant being brought into it.
Activity 4
Like referenced above there's still a lot of work to be done before we as a society can truly say people are treated equal because of their sexuality, despite progress being made in terms of rights, there's still a long way to go. One of the changes I would make is to take online activism to real life. Social media and the internet in general is the most powerful tool in the 21st century, people can be informed about issues regarding the community and have the ability to be educated on certain topics, like the Tinder incident referenced earlier, you can educate people who are ignorant to the struggles the LGBTQ community face, as in the face of discrimination the best way to counteract hate is to educate. But, online there's nothing else you can do apart from sharing posts about LGBTQ, what people can do is show their support to LGBTQ+ support groups in different ways, such as donating to specific groups that fight every second for the rights of the LGBTQ community. Groups such as GLAAD fight for the community by providing anti-bullying resources, blogs, events and they actively push for more LGBTQ representation in media, with a yearly report entitled 'Where We Are on TV Report' which notes the changes in LGBTQ representation. In these reports GLAAD's main goal is to have 20% of characters in media be LGBTQ and right now that percentage is around 11%, which is showing that there's progress being made.
Something else that can be done is that more LGBTQ figures need to be involved with media, not just in film and television but with the news sector. In the majority of news articles, the authors aren't usually apart of the community and I believe that to be completely against the point, it's hypocritical for news organizations to say that the LGBTQ community needs more representation and not have LGBTQ writers/input into their articles. I also believe that current news organizations should not only include more representation, but they should go through their archives (past articles) and condemn past discriminatory articles, as referenced above the Sun have said some horrid and despicable things about the community in the past and those things should be condemned. That'll help the community because these papers should acknowledge that they've been the reason that the LGBTQ community has suffered for years, if these papers had morals, they would've stood up to all the discriminatory comments made by the public and past people of power, the media has immense power in society yet they allowed discrimination to run rampant for years. Society has moved on and these papers should realise their past and use it to improve themselves in the future, despite there still being some individuals who don't want society to improve and make itself better.
Activity 5
I believe that the research that needs to be done is within the modern media sector itself, I believe that we need to ask the question: why is the modern media industry so reluctant to give people of the LGBTQ community representation? It may be a simple question but in my opinion, it's a lot more than that, this question isn't one that revolves around the entertainment industry, it's a social question. There needs to be research into why people are so hostile towards LGBT, because there have been countless examples of people being hateful towards the LGBT community for no apparent reason and it'd be interesting to see why they have such a negative attitude towards the community. And if you get to the bottom of why people are hateful, maybe you can change someone's attitudes towards a community of people. The reason it's so important to get to the bottom of this is that it can be used for future media productions which in turn will get people to see them in a positive light, because film and television has been key in changing consumers view on topics and they've been effective in making people feel represented, and the LGBT community is no different. For example, the film Brokeback Mountain was a key film in LGBT media, with praise being given for its representations of LGBT characters and how it was empowering. However, it also garnered criticism from 'conservative' media and the majority of said criticism was borderline homphobic with many making derogatory comments about the movie, one cinema owner pulled the film from his cinema because of the same-sex romance, showing that even in the 21st century there are still people who don't believe in equality, which further proves the need for more LGBT media, representation and research. Incidents like this are the exact reason that research is needed into why people who are anti-LGBT are the way they are, it'd be incredibly beneficial as learning why people think what they do is key, and can be used in the future to promote equality between others.
Also, more research should be conducted into past 'events' in LGBTQ history, both positive and negative. This is needed for most of the same reasons as the prior point, research into past events can be educational and can shape peoples minds. For example, people should analyze the fight for LGBT rights, people today should learn about how homosexuality was only decriminalized (In the UK) in 1967, this is key as events like these should show just how much representation is needed, as a heterosexual male I look back on these events with shock and anger, realizing that there were people who would be penalised for their sexuality made me realise that I should use my voice for good and it's impacted the way I see media, I now see media as not only entertainment but pieces of art that can truly resonate with people. It would also have an effect on members of the LGBTQ community as it shows that many people are 'on their side', people who won't stop fighting for equality in the 21st century and won't stand for any homophobic/transphobic moments in modern-day media and will actively campaign for better representation for LGBT people. The impact of learning about past events will not only educate people on the horrors of the past, but will show that the future is key in LGBT rights as people want to create a society that is inclusive towards everyone.
Sources: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-08/representation-of-lgbt-characters-on-tv-why-stop-at-10
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/george-michael-gay-rights-wham-beverly-hills-lgbt-sexuality-hiv-aids-a7495986.html
https://www.gayinthe80s.com/2014/04/1987-television-britains-first-on-screen-gay-kiss/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-independent/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/gay-rights-50-legalisation-homosexuality-british-
media-homophobia-day-marriage-daily-express-lgbt-a7860446.html
https://www.klusster.com/portfolios/conscious-media-publishing/contents/2254
