Frankly I have concerns about this consultation because questions of diversity should not be put to a public vote. It happened in California (Prop 8) – and the majority took away the rights of the minority to marry.
In these days racial equality is a given, and so should equality based on people’s sexual orientation. However, putting questions like these out to public consultation allows people of prejudice to put their views, which will certainly not help.
* Proposition 8 in California
I agree. How can a survey into the under-representation of lesbian and gay people benefit from consulting with ´faith groups´?
“It’s important that we talk to both more accepting and less tolerant audiences.” Rubbish. Talk to those who have been abused, bullied, made fun of and poorly represented.. Find out what the BBC has done to them.. We already know what the bigots think, the BBC has made that plain enough.
On the debate, he said: “Clearly, that headline was wrong. . . The debate was valid, the headline was wrong.”
Oh boy. Missed the point massively here. The headline AND the debate were wrong. It’s about as much of a valid debate as “should women be raped for disobeying their husbands”. How did they not get this after all the complaints?
what good would talking to faith groups do as many are homophobes?
“what good would talking to faith groups do as many are homophobes?”
And many are not. If I was making programmes and wanted to deal with homophobia and the representation of LGBT people properly, I’d want to know what the arguments are, who’s making them and on what grounds.
I did the survey, and was grimly amused to see that at the end you can opt to provide basic demographic info – including gender: Male or Female. Sigh.
If it was representation of ethnic minorities, would the BBC make a point of consulting with racist organisations such as the BNP? Of course not! So why they feel they have to consult with “less tolerant” groups of LGBT people does not make any sense at all. Bigotry doesn’t deserve acknowledgement.
I took the survey. It affords plenty of space to present the views above as well as your own life experience with the BBC. The survey looks to be geared toward the GLB viewership (not mention of Trans) and is very comprehensive. Give it a go, you can always opt out if you feel differently. Better to have a voice then be an armchair critic…
The votes in California and Maine were supposed to give people a voice, but look what happened. Tim Davie’s comments show where the BBC is coming from – and it’s obviously not from a diversity and inclusiveness ethos.
Anon – many are, the non-homophobes never make groups like the homophobes do
Listen up. While the survey is clearly flawed in that it wants to allow bigots to air their poisonous feedback; it is nonetheless an opportunity to air your views to the BBC. I’ve done the survey and would encourage you all to.
I’ve just done the survey too. Whilst its certainly flawed in the wording of some of the questions, not to mention only having gender as male/female, it was at least nice to be able to use it to let off a bit of steam at the BBC, especially about the likes of chris moyles!
What happened in California is but one step in the journey – right now it is being appealed. I love the way people criticise institutions for not being responsive, they then make some sort of an effort (even if it is flawed) and get slammed. Case of damned if you do or damned if you dont. Some of us are glass half full and think there my be a chance in all of this to have a voice and that it will make a difference…
If the BBC had any respect for lesbian and gay people, they wouldn’t need to consult. At least Jana Bennett was honest enough to outline her real thoughts a few years ago.
Dave you’re being unrealistic – most every organisation surveys and consults with their customers/audience all the time, especially special interest groups. If the BBC genuinely believes it has an issue with it’s coverage of the GLB population putting out a survey to license payers makes absolute sense.
The real proof of the pudding is whether they act on this and improve as here I agree with you in that their track record is terrible.
What about Trans people? Are we not to be covered by the Beeb, save for some bad taste and transphobic jokes in sitcoms and comedy skits?
In respect of consulting faith and other groups less tolerant of LGB people George (comment 7) said:
“If it was representation of ethnic minorities, would the BBC make a point of consulting with racist organisations such as the BNP?”
You beat me to it.
I agree with Mumbo Jumbo above. Surely the point is to find out what WE want, what WE need as a community? We hear from the other side what THEY want all the time. Surely that´s the point?
no we’re not.
I made a point (when I did the survey) of mentioning this in every answer.
As to why they don’t want Trannies: the BBC is little more than an arm of the Labour Government these days and they’ve proven that they don’t want anything to do with us.
I filled in this BBC rubbish, and I expect nothing.
I explicitly said that I was sick and tired of the whorey old stereotypes and mixing it with multi-F-IN Culture all London based.
I am a gay Scotsman, born there 43 years ago and this sh!t country whether it be England, Wales or Scotland is no longer a place I wish to believe in or care about.
Ireland has it’s own unique issues with it’s self.
AKA. Robinson’s andthe bitches Religion.
Each and every world problem is down to 3 things.
Why don’t these types just F off and allow Humanity to grow.
Money to be made or Power to acquire.
End of Rant…………………………..
I wonder if the BBC will consult Stonewall or Outrage regarding the content of their religious broadcasting?
Hmm. Thought not.
I filled it in, was very disappointed that it was only about LGB people and not trans people.
Done. I mentioned trans people too.
I agree with George Comment 7 above – and very good point, RobN!
General invisibility plus sporadic stereotyping are general on the broadcast media, not just the BEEB, and you get fobbed off with lame excuses. A few years ago The Bill had some good (not perfect, but trying) l&g characters who all disappeared (they affected sales in Oz, apparently)and I complained. I was told they hoped I liked the one and only remaining lesbian cop. I pointed out that unlike the straight characters she had no emotional or sexual life at all and discovering her sexuality in itself almost required a CID investigation. I got no response, of course.
Despite misgivings about the survey I hope as many people on here take 10 minutes to fill it in.
I can see a value in seeing what bigots think, so long as it doesn’t count, beyond being aired in that vacuous Big Questions show on Sunday mornings.
The survey needs to be about how it portrays / discusses homosexuality as a topic, not just LGBs. The low coverage given to homophobic hate crime until only very revently, Newsnight debates in which someone with a religious viewpoint has to be wheeled in as if it is a valid point to have, when in fact there is no discussion to be had about whether it’s OK to be gay. Someone might mention the absence of homosexuality in nature programmes, too.
Adrian T: I love the BBC Natural History stuff, find it aesthetically pleasing and informative but WHERES THE FVCK1NG HOMOSEXUALITY!
Adrian T said: ‘I can see a value in seeing what bigots think, so long as it doesn’t count …’ Is there a value in seeing what bigots think about race portrayal? If so, where is the BBC consultation to improve the BBC’s portrayal of race and racial issues? Then again maybe they consider their internal Diversity Board is adequate to cope with race portrayal.
On another related note …Do you expect the USA Supreme Court will overturn those 30 odd bigoted popular-vote State constitutional amendments on same-sex marriage? There’s still masses of bigotry in the world, as well as both in USA and here in UK.
I hate Surveys and the BBC is at present a laghing stock. If they can pick winners as the votes flow in, who’s to say they wont ‘Doctor’ this result?