BBC 'needs more gay hosts and less homophobia'

Stephen Fry

Study produced for BBC says drama, news and even children's TV needs more homosexual content

LAST UPDATED AT 14:25 ON Fri 14 Dec 2012

MORE GAY presenters, actors and comedians should appear across the BBC, and less time should be given to "homophobic" views on BBC News, according to a study seen by the Daily Mail.

Solitaire Consulting, who produced the study for the BBC, claimed that all genres of programming, including children's TV, should regularly feature non-heterosexual people. News and drama were named as the biggest areas for improvement. It was also important to help gay minors by "incorporating representation within programming for children who are going through their formative years".

However, the same study shows that 20 per cent of heterosexual male viewers thought there were already too many gay people on the BBC.

The report coincides with the government's debate over whether to allow gay marriages in churches.

Clare Luke, who produced the Solitaire report, recommended bolder storylines featuring gay characters in dramas and soaps, while documentaries need more homosexual presenters and portrayal of gay people in history.

More than one in ten men and women are "uncomfortable" with the portrayal of gay, lesbian and bisexual people in the media generally, said Luke's report.

At the BBC, the "biggest risk" comes in comedy programmes when homosexuals are the focus of a joke. This was judged as being only truly acceptable when the comedians themselves were gay.

The BBC can point to several gay presenters on popular TV and radio comedy shows including Stephen Fry, Graham Norton, Paul O'Grady and Sandi Toksvig.

There are many notable gay presenters across the BBC's other outputs, including newsreader Jane Hill, presenter John Barrowman and Byker Grove star Andrew Hayden-Smith. · 

Disqus - noscript

"already too many gay people on the BBC".

Thank goodness that some people's eyes are open and that some of us abhor such social engineering. If they want to be Homosexual, then go ahead, without discrimination, but don't stuff our kids with more propaganda.

I solved this for my children years ago by getting rid of the telly and stopping paying the licence fee. Then I bought dvd's of suitable material. Thats when i realised that, if it was not for Attenborough there'd be nothing worth watching. Nowadays you can watch it all whenever you like, licence free on iplayer.

It is surely a basic human right not to have homosexual social engineering and subconscious propaganda drip fed into every corner of peoples lives.

You know what they say, "Less is more".

I read an article this summer about how 2012 was the "women's games"; it gave long lists of statistics and examples of feminism at the London Olympics.

At the time I thought: "Surely, if the point of feminism is that men and women are seen as equals, the fact that we still have to point out that women were there shows that we've not quite reached that point yet?" It won't be considered the "women's games" in my mind until the female athletes presence and successes are taken for granted, without editorial comment.

The same can be said of the LGBT community in mainstream society. If we can only enjoy Clare Balding or Stephen Fry as presenters because they are gay, that's a sad reflection on our values. Why should presenters (or, in fact, those in any profession) be catagorized or defined by their sexuality (or gender, or race, or any other factor)?

The day we truly have an equal society is the day that we stop looking for labels or any sort and accept everyone as an individual, without asking questions.

For further concise, balanced comment and analysis on the week's news, try The Week magazine. Subscribe today and get 6 issues completely free.