Yesterday, after much annoyance with their programming, I took the advice of someone on Facebook that I got into a debate with who was blind to the lack of diversity on the gay TV channel, Logo. And it is not surprising this person would be blind to the lack of diversity because he was a person of light-complexion, which is exactly what way too many gay media outlets (from porn to television) portray as the only beauty within the LGBT community. And every one else is made either uber-masculine or uber-feminine, no in-between about it.
So this is the tweet that I sent to Logo using TwitLonger:
@LogoTV,
You could get ratings by featuring a variety of ethnicities AND skin tones. Your heads of programming are too ignorant and racist to believe that variety will sell. The problem that comes from you trying now is that:
1)it won't happen UNLESS you try; and
2)you've stuck to your formula of "light is right" for so long that people of color will NOW be slow to watch. And your racist head(s) of programming will use that being "slow to watch" as an excuse to not show diversity in ethnicities AND skin tones.
Now, I am fully aware that you have had shows featuring men of color, but each one of them have never been allowed much longevity. So in the end, it becomes like I've said before in my blog REPEATEDLY...the typical American gay male is his own worst enemy.
I have made numerous comments on your website, and via Twitter about my disapproval of your programming and its lack of diversity. And it seems that unless it is someone kissing your behind on something of no importance (like your recent mention of Jared Leto), you feel no need to reply.
If you want equality, I suggest that you start in your own backyard. That way right-wingers won't be so justified in looking down on us. Because your programming (especially the negative stereotypes of shallow re-enforced by the clowns of "The A-List: New York") makes you part of the problem, and in no way the solution we need. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tré Xavier of http://TresX-RayVision.com
Did I say what needed to be said? If you believe so, tell them that you agree by either sending them tweets on Twitter (@LogoTV), go to their Facebook page, or go to their website to express your shared annoyance. And feel free to let them know that I sent you.
It's a pity since Logo had such potential when it started a few years back and it has squandered it for a number of reasons, including the ones you've stated. It's like a Bravo-knock off these days.
ReplyDeleteI disagree, they had Noah's Arc on and that was a great show. Rupal is on constantly. If you're going to call someone racist, back it up.
ReplyDeleteTre, why are you referring to Anonymous as "illiterate?" His post was clear and concise. He was merely asking a question or maybe trying to start a dialouge?
ReplyDeleteAlso, why did answer with such venom and hate? Anonymous simply asked a question and presented a challenge. I just don't understand the personal attack, the cursing, name calling and bitterness.
"Bitch," "asshole" and "faggot."
Is this what you mean when you talk about people in our community not standing together or how a young person is to follow your advice on how "It Gets Better?"
What's the purpose of such nastiness?
James,
ReplyDeleteAre you just as far gone as "Anonymous"?
1 It clearly says under "Leave your comment": "if you use "Anonymous" on a viewpoint that challenges mine, IT WILL BE DELETED for your cowardice to not show yourself makes your viewpoint and you irrelevant."
I put that rule in place because it gives me some one to respect for having a difference of opinion.
and
2 I was thorough in making my point, and no matter how long this post is, I covered every base "Anonymous" tried to claim calling me out on.
So with those 2 things in play, YES, I have every right to call him "illiterate".
And you wonder why I respond with such nastiness? It's because I LOATHE stupidity & cowardice, and someone trying to call me out when they have NO GROUNDS because I COVERED ALL BASES is stupid, and with no name to brand it is cowardice. So he wasn't asking a question to start a dialogue. Instead, his behavior mimics an atheist vandal throwing a rock in a church window, then running away so no one sees him/her.
Furthermore, this is my online house, and I demand the same respect from others as if they were to come into my real home. Which means that you don't come into my house telling me what's wrong, when I obviously did it right. But because "Anonymous" had the personal agenda to nit-pick, he/she chose to ignore what was right in their face. And this wasn't a long blog post, so it wasn't hard to miss.
Now, it is quite obvious by you jumping to Anonymous's defense the way you have, that you don't have that same respect for what is yours. I respect someone who challenges my opinion, but I will ONLY respect them if they stand behind their convictions with their name. If I didn't, I wouldn't be responding to you right now. Instead, I would threatening you with the same fate as I threatened Anonymous...yet I haven't.