
GLAAD just released its sixth annual Network Responsibility Index, a report that maps the quantity, quality and diversity of images of LGBT people on television.
No network earned the top “Excellent” rating this year. The CW once again was the top broadcast network during the 2011-12 season, with 29% of its primetime programming hours being LGBT-inclusive. The CW also had the most racial diversity with 62% of impressions made by LGBT people/characters of color, mostly courtesy of America’s Next Top Model. ABC and Fox swapped spots. ABC was at 27%, up 4% from last season, to move up to second place, while Fox (24%) slid 5% to third. ABC’s impressions stemmed largely from reality programming, mainly Dancing With the Stars, which featured transgender Chaz Bono last season, and hit comedy Modern Family, while Fox’s inclusive hours were mostly in comedy, with Glee and American Dad. The CW, ABC and Fox all earned “Good” scores. NBC (19%, “Adequate”) remained in fourth place but its LGBT inclusive hours went up 4%, largely thanks to The Voice and Smash. The network is expected to move up even further next year with new fare like comedy The New Normal.
For the fourth year in a row CBS was stuck in last place with 8% LGBT-inclusive hours of primetime programming, down 2% with a “Failing” score, after improving slightly to “Adequate” last year. Its LGBT impressions were almost exclusively on drama The Good Wife.
On the cable side, ABC Family, which scored a rare “Excellent” rating last year, slipped from first to second place. Showtime (46%), ABC Family (34%), TNT (34%), and HBO (33%) all received “Good” ratings for the quantity and quality of their LGBT-inclusive original programming. MTV (23%), which received an “Excellent” score just two years ago, received an “Adequate” score this year along with FX (34%) and USA (17%). For the fourth year in a row TBS (5%) received a “Failing” rating.
For the first time this year, GLAAD included two cable network it said are “known for programming that traditionally appeals to a more conservative audience,” TLC and History. With 20% LGBT representation, TLC received an “Adequate” grade, while History was at the very bottom of the list with 3% and a “Failing” score.
The diversity of LGBT impressions on the broadcast networks declined slightly from last year, with 66% of LGBT impressions being white. Transgender representation continues to be low on nearly every television network but ticked up from 0.002% last year to 0.01% this year. On cable it was 0.005%. One of the highlights was Chaz Bono’s appearance on Dancing with the Stars. You can read the full report here.
TV Editor Nellie Andreeva - tip her here.


If we’re talking responsibility, how does 29% of programming that represents less than 5% of the population not get excellent. It should get Excellent “overrepresentation.”
I mean we’ve got autistics, people with CP, Downs, Mental retardation… Asians… All who make up more of the population in America than gays. Why don’t we have 30% of our programming representing them.
And since there is twice as many African Americans (more than twice really) but let’s just for sake of ease say twice as many as gays. Well then I guess we should have 60% programming to reflect blacks.
And since Hispanics out measure them all in terms of population, we need about 140% of programming to reflect that group.
Shit… Running out of program time.
Oh well, I guess the only way to make it work is if every single show is a bout a gay-trans-gendered Mexican American who’s married to a Black women and they have one Asian kid, one mentally challenged kid, one disabled kid (mix and match races and genders there)….
Maybe THEN we’ll have “responsible” programming. But I’m not sure.
“I like it. Let’s do it.”
I cant believe that someone actually cared enough to set up metrics to measure this by.
REAL PROGRESS in Hollywood will be when gay actors can be open about their personal lives and won’t face discrimination when they try for heterosexual roles. Why isn’t GLAAD making that a priority instead of these stupid reports that mean nothing or their silly award show where they give awards to straight actors who are “brave” enough to play gay roles?
Well, for starters, “less than 5%” of the population is incorrect.
And just because 29% of the programming is LGBT inclusive doesn’t mean much. It just means that there was an LGBT character or person involved in some way in the show. It does NOT mean that 29% of a network’s programming “represents” the LGBT community, it just means they’re not made to be invisible.
I agree they shouldn’t be made invisible. But don’t kid yourself. The overall population of gay and transgendered people in this country is not more than 5%. THere was a longstanding “one-in-ten” statistic that was born of completely flawed research by Kinsey but it became a rallying cry for the gay community.
More recent and comprehensive studies by various state heath commissions and even National Institutes of Health all put the number somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5 to 3 percent. So actually 5 is high.
There have been studies, however, that clearly demonstrate the public’s “perception” of what the gay population is is much higher than the actual. Much of it due to the growing strength and presence of positive gay representations in the media.
So yeah… There’s that.
Teddy Montgomery played by Trevor Donovan on 90210 is the most positive non stereo typical gay character I have seen on TV in my 55 years here on EARTH. Bravo! CW network. Don’t hide him so much.
Why would anybody care what special interest group GLAAD says? They are irrelevant. It’s no coincidence that “failing” CBS wins big in the popular ratings.
The saddest point of this story is that ABC Family still calls itself “family”.
Because gay people can’t have families?
I think the point of GLAAD’s index is to remind networks and consumers at large that more than just straight, white, men exist in the world. Whether some people acknowledge it or not the world is still very much racist and homophobic and visibility matters. It might not mean anything to you but I can tell you that seeing yourself reflected in the programming you watch makes you feel important and a little less alone.
Sometimes the only gay content you see on a show is done for shock value and its insulting. To your point I think we should have more Asian, Latin, African, Arabic, etc representation. We should have more people in wheelchairs or with Down’s Syndrome or Autism. How does it hurt to show diversity? It’s not pandering; its accurately depicting society.
My point was sarcastic (doesn’t always work on internet)…
In that I fully agree — we should find ways to be diverse without modelling it on statistics. Cuz I think, as you say, to do so engenders portrayals that are sometimes forced and often insulting.
Or end up with the kind of nonsense I suggested that is the result of chasing numbers instead of representing actual people.
Another good reason to watch CBS. I’m sick of watching men act like women. Call me whatever, I don’t care, I like what I like, but seeing effeminate men act like overly-dramatic women is disgusting in my opinion… and hardly funny.
CBS is also failing to deliver any shows worth watching.
Why would you read this if you don’t care what they say? You are the reason America is falling behind in every aspect compared to many countries.
>>I agree they shouldn’t be made invisible. But don’t kid yourself. The overall population of gay and transgendered people in this country is not more than 5%. THere was a longstanding “one-in-ten” statistic that was born of completely flawed research by Kinsey but it became a rallying cry for the gay community.
More recent and comprehensive studies by various state heath commissions and even National Institutes of Health all put the number somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5 to 3 percent. So actually 5 is high.–
What studies are those. Everything I’ve read states there is no accurate way to discern how many gays are out there. There is too much negative social stigma. And this includes even anonymous surveys. It may not be 10 percent if you exclude bisexual. But it likely averages out to around 5 percent.
Representing the minority of television viewers achieves only one thing, disenfranchising the majority. Hence the horrendous ratings on the CW and specifically on it’s shows that represent lesbians and gays.
Or is there anyone at GLAAD that’s delusional enough to think an average of 1.5 million viewers is a good ratings standpoint for shows on a network that has a potential reach of 290 Million viewers?
I think my phone is homophobic. I clicked on the report and its content locked