A Reception Study Among British Gay Male

(1)

“I don’t feel comfortable with the representation of me.”

– A Reception Study Among British Gay Male Audiences of the Representation of Gay

Males in Fictional TV Series on the British Small Screen

Student Number: 200780362

Module Name: Dissertation and Research Methods

Module Number: COMM5600M

Word Count: 14121

(2)

1

Abstract

As the visibility of gay people has increased on television, scholars have demonstrated

great interest in how they are represented. This study is going to explore how gay males

perceive theirrepresentation. In order to achieve this, Stuart Hall's works of representation

and Clark's model of the media representation of minorities were discussed as the

theoretical framework of this research. Other relevant studies were also reviewed as they

can help us to understand the issue and in-depth interviews were conducted with 15 gay

men discussing gay male representation in contemporary TV series on the British small

screen.

It was found that they are not satisfied with their representation. They think it is relatively

narrow, and that the sexuality of gay characters has been over-emphasised. Their

discussions of the representation were often contextualized to the genre of the

programmes which indicates that the representation impacts considerably on their own

lives. Some of them related themselves to the fictional characters, and the gay identity

(3)

2

1 - Introduction

It is reported that almost 92% of the UK population are TV viewers (BARB, 2014), and that

they “currently watch an average of four hours and two minutesof television a day”.

Additionally, more and more viewers tend to watch TV programmes either online or on

portable devices (BBC, 2013). It is therefore beyond doubt that TV continues to play a vital

role in people’s lives in the UK.

Historically, sexual orientation has been regulated through differing societies and often

enforced through the law. Over many centuries gay and lesbian people have been

subjected to prejudice and discrimination - indeed in 1810 it was a capital offence in Britain

(Cook et al., 2007, p.109). Fortunately, during the 20 century and the early 21st century,

enlightened legislation has empowered the gay community through changes in the law

relating to equal employment, marriage, adoption, and other facets of life. The Stonewall

Riots (1969), regarded as the catalyst for the start of gay rights, and since then there has

been a slowly-developing acceptance and tolerance of gay people and their lifestyles.

From the inception of the gay liberation movement, there also has been an increase in

what is known as “queer visibility”. In the west, both in public and community life, alongside

improvements brought about through political and legal initiatives, we can see more and

more queer people. As a result, “queers have been increasingly visible in the

(5)

4 great increase of images and representations of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered

people (referred to in this thesis as LGBT). Gays and Lesbians have already became a

prominent fixture in the media, especially in TV (ibid., p.XI). From the first gay kiss in

EastEnders to a whole series about gay life, Queer as Folk, gay people have become

regular sightings in the fictional TV series.

Without doubt researchers who study the effects of television suggest that the

representation of sexual minorities on TV do impact on audiences’ understanding, attitude,

and opinion of those minorities and the issues related to them (Signorile, 1993; Hart, 2000;

Gross, 2001; Tropiano, 2002; cited in Gibson, 2006, p.257). Therefore, scholars in the field

of media, communication, and culture have had a great interest in issues of LGBT and

television. A number of researchers, particularly in America, have studied the subject (e.g.,

Gibson, 2006; Raley and Lucas, 2006; Barnhurst, 2007; Chamber, 2009), and the

US-based LGBT organization, Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), launches

its media-monitoring reports every year. However, in the UK only four major reports of

LGB portrayals on TV were found (Stonewall, 2006; Stonewall, 2010; The BBC, 2010; The

BBC, 2012), and fewer academic studies have been found (e.g., Arthurs,2004; Bradley,

2013).

Of all the different genres of TV programmes, fictional TV series (soap, drama, comedy

(6)

5 leisure time. Those programmes contain many familiar characters which can build an

“ambiguous” relationship with the audiences (Livingstone, 1998). Therefore, scholars who

study the media representation of sexual minorities have paid special attention to TV

series such as Queer as Folk (e.g., Davis, 2007), Will & Grace (e.g., Battles and

Hilton-Morrow, 2002), and EastEnders (e.g., Bradley, 2013).

All in all, there is a large number of studies on the representation of sexual minorities in the

mass media, however most of them focus on the textual level, namely, researching on the

media product. Smaller amounts of research have been found on how audiences perceive

the representation, i.e. reception studies, especially in the UK.

Therefore this research will explore the audiences’ views on the representation. Instead of

focusing on the mass (straight/heterosexual) audience, the present research will pay more

attention to the sexual minorities, specifically gay males, as audiences because it is the

representation of themselves.

After a deal of consideration of relevant theories, studies and reports, the following

research question, aim and objectives were formulated:

Research question: How do gay male audiences perceive the gay male representations

(7)

6

Research aim: To investigate how gay male audiences read and make meaning from gay

male characters in contemporary TV series on the British small screen.

Research objectives:

1. To discover the general impressions held by gay male audiences of these

representations.

2. To identify what they consider to be positive/negative representations.

3. To explore the views that they hold on stereotypes.

(8)

7

2 - Literature review

2.1 Representations matter

This thesis has at its centre the issue of representation. The concept of “representation” is

problematic although numbers of theorists have discussed and examined it. The central

theoretical background to this thesis will be the works of Stuart Hall.

2.1.1 What is representation?

Representation is simply defined by Hall as “the production of meaning through language”

(Hall, 1997b, p.16). His theory on representation expands upon this simple concept by

studying the “crucial links between language, culture and how shared meanings are

constructed and represented within language” (McEwen, 2010).

The term “language” “is being used here in a very broad and inclusive way”, including

written language, spoken language, visual images, and “some other means when they are

used to express meaning” (ibid., p.18). Hall suggests that the production of meaning

actually involves two processes. First, there is a correlation at work in our mind between

“all sorts of objects, people and events” and “a set of concepts” (ibid., p.17). The meaning

is given to the world “by constructing a set of correspondences or a chain of equivalences

between things and our system of concepts, our conceptual maps” (ibid., p.19). Then in

the second process, our concepts and ideas match up with signs (words, sounds or

(9)

8 process, meaning is formed in those correspondences. Thus, the process which links

“things”, concepts, and signs together “is what we call ‘representation’ ” (ibid.). When we

example representations therefore we are always discussing what they mean. Producing

and exchanging meaning is through the use of language.

In the practices of representation, we can understand each other because we are “sharing

the codes” (ibid., p.21). “Codes fix the relationships between concepts and signs” (ibid.).

Where a language is shared then there is a shared understanding of that language and of

cultural values. So if we are sharing the same codes, as Hall puts it, we can say that we

are sharing in the same culture. The spoken and written words are usually used but

representation can be made through objects, music, gesture, body language, visual

images et al.

Language acts as a signifying practice in which meaning is coded into interpretation. In

this process Hall states that when we put things into code it is called “encoding”, when we

interpret the meaning for that code is called “decoding” (ibid., p.62) (to be discussed later).

Hall continues his argument saying that if the meaning is dependent on the cultural codes,

then it “can never be finally fixed” (Hall, 1997b, p.23), but it can be relatively stable in a

certain period of time. This notion that meaning is never truly fixed is one of Hall’s most

important conclusions. Therefore representation cannot be a fixed and unchangeable

(10)

9 Thus in this thesis one of the main aims is to examine how British gay male audiences

make meaning from the gay male characters from TV series and how fixed is that

representation.

2.1.2 Theorising representation

Hall’s social constructionist view of representation is greatly influenced by two celebrated

scholars – Ferdinand de Saussure and Michel Foucault. Saussure believes that “language

is a system of signs”, and “the sign is the union of a form which signifies (signifier)… and

an idea signified (signified). Though we may speak … as if they are separate entities, they

exist only as components of the sign… [which is] the central fact of language” (Hall, 1997b,

p.31). So in this way meaning is produced by linking the signifier together with the signified.

He argues that the fundamental basis in the production of meaning is the marking of

difference.

For example, we can identify “red”is “red”because “red” is not “green”.“In order to

produce meaning, the signifiers have to be organized into ‘a system of differences’ ” (ibid.,

p.32). He argues that this system of differences is the result of particular historical instants

inside culture and history. Therefore “interpretation becomes an essential aspect of the

process by which meaning is given and taken. The reader is as important as the writer in

(11)

10 Barthes brought the semiotic approach of Saussure to bear on “reading” a wide range of

texts (such as advertisements, soap operas) in popular culture, treating them as signs of:

“a language through which meaning is communicated” (ibid., p.36). He suggests that the

interpretation of meaning contains two levels: (1) denotation is read in the shown image

directly, (2) and connotation is decoded in the carried message or meaning where involved

in the wider realms of social ideology in specific culture (ibid., p.38).

Representation is understood in the way in which words or images function as signs to

make meaning. Later theorists developed this and started to consider representation as a

source for the production of social knowledge via larger units – discourse. The most

significant theorist in this field is Michel Foucault (ibid., p.42). In his idea “discourse is

much broader than language, and includes many other elements of practice and

institutional regulation …” (ibid., p.51). He continues “the production of knowledge is

always crossed with questions of power and the body; and this greatly expands the scope

of what is involved in representation” (ibid.). Thus representation becomes a more

complex issue because of its relationship to power.

2.1.3 Representing difference and stereotyping

Representing difference is a very common practice of representation; however, it is also

controversial, because power is involved in the representation of “others”. Therefore,

(12)

11 Hall (1997a) through analysing a “variety of images [of black people] which [were] on

display in popular culture and the mass media” in a wide period of time, explicitly illustrates

how the representation of others works and what are the issues in that representation. He

emphasizes that although his theoretical account of representing “others” comes from the

analysis of images of black people, it “could be equally applied in many instances to other

dimensions of difference, such as gender, sexuality, class, and disability” (ibid., p.225).

Hall presents four accounts of why ‘difference’ does matter theoretically from linguistic,

social, cultural, and psychic levels respectively.

His first dimension comes from Linguists who take the same sort approach of as Saussure:

“‘difference’ matters because it is essential to meaning; without it, meaning could not exist”

(ibid. p.234). For example we can define masculinity by examining its opposite: femininity.

This binary opposition is simplistic and excludes the large area between definitions of

opposites.

The second account is also from the theories of language which offer another argument:

“we need ‘difference’ because we can only construct meaning through a dialogue with the

‘other’ ” (ibid.). The difference between the two accounts is that the first strictly focuses on

binary oppositions, but the second emphasises that meaning comes from a dialogue with

(13)

12 The third account comes from anthropology: “culture depends on giving things meaning

by assigning them to different positions within a classificatory system. The marking of

‘difference’ is thus the basis of that symbolic order” (ibid., p.236). The quoted example is

that foods can be classified into groups of raw and cooked. It is the difference between

these groups that gives them meaning. However problems arise when the things fail to fit

or are in the wrong category.

“The fourth kind of explanation is psychoanalytic and relatesto the role of ‘difference’ in

our psychic life. The argument here is that the ‘Other’ is fundamental to the constitution of

the self to us as subjects, and to sexual identity” (ibid. p.237). Hall uses the example of

Freudian theory where after realizing that one is different from mother or father then one

takes on the feminine or masculine role.

The notion of “other” is extremely important because we encounter others every day.

However, we may not treat them well, and this shifts the way in which we represent them.

The other through making difference can lead to seeing “us”and “them”, with “them”

abnormal and “us” normal. These differences can be threatening to the “other”. This is the

essence of stereotyping (Hall, 1997a).

Stereotyping is the representation of people thus formed within a discourse which “is

(14)

13 “stereotyped” means they are “reduced to a few essentials, fixed in Nature by a few

simplified characteristics” (ibid.).

He stresses three very important main points about stereotyping: first, it “reduces,

essentializes, naturalizes and fixes ‘difference’”; “Secondly, stereotyping deploys a

strategy of ‘splitting’”; “The third point is that stereotyping tends to occur where there are

gross inequalities of power” (ibid., p.258). Therefore, stereotyping plays a very important

role in the “regime of representation”. It creates a very definite gap between “us” and “the

other”.

Hall continues his argument by asking “can a dominant regime of representation be

challenged, contested or changed” (Hall, 1997a, p.269). Because he believes that

“meaning can never be finally fixed” (ibid., p.270), he argues that by using the practice of

“trans-coding” then change can be made. He provides three trans-coding strategies. The

first strategy is reversing the stereotyping. Hall illustrates several 1960s and 70s “revenge”

films in which all the previous negative stereotyping characteristics were valued positively.

For example, the black characters were all “bad” roles but “heroic” (ibid., p.270-271).

Secondly, a range of positive imagery can replace the negative. Using the campaign

slogan “black is beautiful” for example, “a derogatory term (‘black’) is coupled with a

positive term (‘beautiful’) to increase the representational range of what is means ‘to be

(15)

14 is still the danger of failing to displace the negative connotation. “The third counter-strategy

locates itself within the complexities and ambivalences of representation itself, and tries to

contest if from within” (Hall, 1997a, p.274). For example, a comedian who uses wit to

ensure the audience laughs with rather than at stereotypes.

To sum up, “difference” is important because it is something that helps us to understand

the world and make meaning. So in the case of this thesis homosexuality is important as it

is the binary to heterosexuality. Understanding how homosexuals think about the

representation of themselves may provide useful accounts which can be used as

trans-coding strategies to challenge the stereotyping representation.

2.1.4 Clark's Model

Another theoretical model useful for this research is that of Clark (1969, cited in Fitzgerald,

2010) who concludes that there are four chronological stages of media representation of

minorities.

In the first stage, the minority group is totally ignored by the mass media, namely, no

images of people in the minority group appear. Clark names this stage as “non

-recognition”. The second stage is “ridicule”, in which the members of that group are

portrayed as “buffoons”. They are presented stereotypically by the media and even used

as subjects that are belittled and even humiliated. “Regulation” is the third stage. Minority

(16)

15 example, presented as police officers. Then if there is no difference between the media

portrayals of the minority group and other groups, it comes to the final stage “respect”. The

members in the group are presented as they are in real life, which can be either positive or

negative. Stereotyping representation can still be seen in this stage, but “they are not

considered to be as harmful to the process of social constructionism as are stereotypical

characters when only a handful of characters representing the social group” (Hart, 2003,

p.598). It is because the stereotypical characters exist just as part of the social group in

the wide range of different types of characters in the group.

Although Clark put forward his model of media representation of minorities in an editorial

commentary, which is not an academic study, numbers of scholars “have found his

analysis useful” (Fitzgerald, 2010, p.369). This model has been adopted in the field of

media representation of sexual minority and will be reflected in this research.

2.1.5 Encoding/Decoding

Encoding and decoding are two specific stages in the practice of representation, which are

worth to discuss further. Hall (1993), through analysing how messages are produced and

received within the television discourse, puts forward a four-stage model of mass

communication: production, circulation, distribution/consumption, and reproduction. He

also argues that in the communicative process there are “determinate moments” which are

(17)

16 Hall argues that the meaning of text, in this case television, is located between its producer

and the reader. The producer (encoder) frames (encodes) meaning in a certain way while

the reader (decoder) decodes it differently according to personal background; various

different social situation and other frames of interpretation. For instance, an event has to

be encoded into a televisual story in order to broadcast it on TV. The audience then can

interpret (decode) the event in their own way. However, “decodings do not follow inevitably

from encodings” (Chandler and Munday, 2011).

Hall provides us with three types of audience reading (decoding) of text. First is the

dominant or preferred reading. This is when the reader decodes the message as the

encoder (producer) wants them to do and broadly agrees with it. Readers “unconsciously

draw on common sense” to establish the meaning (ibid.). This is taken to be the

hegemonic position. Second, negotiated meaning is when the reader shares some of the

code and broadly accepts the preferred reading but they can reject or refine some of the

elements of the text in the light of their previously held view. Contradictions occur because

individual experiences and interests intervene in the interpretation. Third, oppositional

('counter-hegemonic') reading occurs if the decoder recognises the dominant meaning and

in direct opposition rejects that meaning for cultural, political or ideological reasons. They

(18)

17 Criticisms of Hall’s model have been made: such as how can a preferred reading be

established? Others doubt the model’s mass media genre application. Despite the various

criticisms it is Hall who first “highlighted the importance of active interpretation within

relevant codes” and “gave a significant role to the 'decoder' as well as to the 'encoder'”

(Chandler, 2000). His model has been very influential and encouraged a number of

scholars to focus further on reception studies. The presenting research will also follow this

tradition of emphasising and analysing the significant role of the decoder.

2.2 The politics of queer representation

In this section, the notion of the “other” is accorded to sexual minorities. The issues of

representation of sexual minorities (queer), especially the representation in television, will

be examined in the literature.

One of the significant differences between sexual minorities and the other minorities (such

as racial and ethnic minorities) is that they are self-identified. (Gross, 1991). Namely, we

cannot identify them by their appearances (sometimes people assume that effeminate

men or masculine women might be homosexual, however, there is no direct connection

between these). Gross (1991) argues that in this context, they are “akin to political

minorities (so-called radicals and ‘fringe’ group)”. McKee (2000) points out that the media

(19)

18 Therefore more attention needs to be “paid to the situation of lesbian women and gay men

as members of the mass media audience” (Gross, 1991, p.19).

The gay liberation movement started in the late 1960s in the United States following the

examples of the black, anti-war, and feminist movements (ibid., p.28).The Stonewall Riots

of 1969 heralded a new worldwide gay social movement which has played a very

important role in LGBT history. It “set off when a relatively ‘routine’ raid on a ‘gay bar’ in

New York’s Greenwich Village turned to a three-day confrontation between hundreds of

police and thousands of protesters” (Chambers, 2009, p.11). This original and literal

fighting for “gay liberation” and “radical sexual politics” “quickly became a part of ‘identity

politics’ with the goal of achieving ‘gay rights’ in the 1970s, by claiming that sexual

orientation as “a fixed sexual identity” whose rights should be protected.

In this context, “lesbian and gay studies began to appear on US university campuses

throughout the 1980s” (Chambers, 2009, p.12). Scholars believe that “if lesbian and gay

men possessed a fixed identity based upon their ‘sexual orientation’, an identity whose

rights should be defended politically, then this meant that there was a gay identity to be

studied by the academy” (ibid.). Thus, the understanding of gay identity became a central

academic dimension in early gay and lesbian studies.

Queer theory was developed on the basis of lesbian and gay studies in the 1990s as a

(20)

19 immutable characteristic”, queer theorists started to question the “idea of a fixed, abiding

notion of identity”. Chamber states, “A queer approach always insists on a relational

understanding of identity, and it customarily asserts the importance of gender and

sexuality to that relational conception” (Chambers, 2009, p.13). Queer theorists put

forward this notion of “queer” to “question conventional understandings of sexual identity

by deconstructing the categories, oppositions and equations” (cited in Jagose, 1996, p.97).

For instance, they even question the categories (identities) of gay and lesbian. They hold

the idea that sexuality is fluid.

Therefore queer theory also provides recognition to non-normative sexualities and sexual

practices such as transsexual, bisexual, intersexual. This greatly challenges the

heteronormativity existing in the straight culture and society (Jagose, 1996).

The concept of heteronormativity in the context of this research needs further discussion.

“Queer theorists interpret heteronormativity as the discursive power granted to the

compulsory heterosexual matrix in Western society” (Dhaenen, 2012, p.58). Rich (1980)

who first put forward the term argues “popular culture will tend to portray heterosexuality

as if it were natural and inevitable and to position alternative forms of sexuality as ‘other’ ”

(Raymond, 2003, p.103-104). Heteronormativity “relies upon fixed notions of biological sex,

gender, and sexuality, and veils its constructedness and anomalies by feigning universality

(21)

20 prevailing power establishing a sociocultural hierarchy “between subjects who conform to

the heterosexual ideal and subjects who do not or cannot conform to the heteronormal”

(ibid.). The media representation of sexual minorities still continues to be dominated by

ideology and power of heteronormativity “resulting in representations where gay men and

women participate or want to participate in heteronormative institutions and practices”

(ibid).

2.2.1 Queer representation studies

As homosexuals have become increasingly open and visible in society, promoted by the

gay liberation movement and legislation, their visibility in the mass media has also

increased(Barnhurst, 2007, p.1). However, Barnhurst argues that the “visibility, like other

semantic and semiotic forms, contains its own contradictions” (ibid.). He points out there

are many paradoxes of visibility: “spurring tolerance through harmful stereotyping,

diminishing isolation at the cost of activism, trading assimilation for equality, and

converting radicalism into a market niche” (ibid.). The paradoxes of visibility are just the

reason that attracts scholars to study the queer representation passionately.

Stonewall (2006), one of the UK’s largest LGB charities, published a report on the BBC’s

portrayal of lesbian and gay people. The research included “both a quantitative study of

the content of BBC One and BBC Two during eight weeks” of prime-time viewing between

(22)

21 and heterosexual viewers” (Stonewall, 2006, p.6). It found that there was only 38 minutes

in those programmes that had gay and lesbian references, and that only 6 minutes were

found to be “positively and realistically represented”. “The majority, 72 per cent, of

individual references to gay sexuality were made during entertainment programmes” (ibid.).

They also found that gay people were likely to be used as the subject of jokes; 51% of all

the gay references were “designed for comic effect”; “Most of these revolved around

stereotypes of sexually predatory or camp and effeminate gay men” (ibid).

With regard to audience opinions, they found that straight viewers “would welcome more

documentary programmes about lesbian and gay contemporary social issues such as civil

partnership or the age of consent legislation, as this would help them to understand

lesbian and gay lives” (ibid.). Homosexual audiences thought that the portrayals on TV

were important because they can help to challenge bigotry and prejudice towards them.

Stonewall (2010) carried out further research, however, this time they did not just focus on

the BBC. “Researchers monitored 20 TV programmes most popular with young people on

BBC1, BBC2, ITV1, Channel 4 and Five for a 16 week period”, totalling “126 hours, 42

minutes and 17 seconds of programmes”to analyse “the extent to which lesbian, gay and

bisexual (LGB) people were portrayed positively”. They “also used a series of focus groups

with young people from across Britain to explore their views on the ways broadcasters

(23)

22 very similar to that carried out in 2006 but in addition, it revealed further, more specific,

information, including that some 39% of LGB portrayal was to be found in soap operas.

They also found that young people “think that gay people on TV are largely stereotyped,

leading unhappy lives, are bullied, and are rejected by their families”, and that this kind of

negative portrayals would influence their views about gay people.

In response to the Stonewall research, the BBC conducted its own research on the

portrayal of lesbian women, gay men and bisexual people in broadcast media in 2010

(Hemley, 2010). This research was based on a national survey which involved a

representative sample of 1,625 UK adults. The most significant findings were that “LGB

people want to see more and greater diversity within, LGB portrayal”, and that programme

“context is critical to how all audiences perceive the portrayal of LGB people”. Perhaps the

most striking finding was a more open and accepting liberal attitude that “the clear majority

of the UK population are either comfortable with, or do not feel strongly either way about,

the portrayal of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people” (BBC, 2010, p.8).

The BBC updated this research in 2012. It found that “gay and bisexual men seem

relatively happy with the TV they consume (across all channels, not just the BBC) –

lesbian and bisexual women perhaps less so”; and that “the channels watched by LGB

audiences are broadly the same as those watched by heterosexual audiences of the same

(24)

23 representatives of LGB organisations. They suggested that “there is still a perception

among LGB communities that there is insufficient representation of LGB people across the

media, although there has been a gradual degree of improvement over the past ten years

or so”. They confirmed that “television has a key role to play in the portrayal of LGB people,

particularly in news & current affairs, drama series and factual programming”, and another

important reflection was “there should be a careful mix of incidental, overt and landmark

types of LGB portrayal, and that LGB representation should reflect the diversity of LGB

people, and avoid stereotypes” (ibid.).

There are several similarities in the findings of each report, however, the main difference

among the four reports is the audiences’ opinion on the portrayals, especially the gay

audiences’ view. Although this research did not involve a large amount of representative

samples, the results of the research can still contribute an in-depth understanding of the

gay male audiences view on the representation.

Within the academia of media, communication, and cultural studies, it seems that

American scholars have researched more on the queer representation in mass media,

especially television, than British scholars. The majority of them like to focus on the

textural level (i.e. media products). Apart from using examples to demonstrate their

arguments, they also employ content analysis and discourse analysis to explore these

(25)

24 Rhonda Gibson (2006) gives us a clear picture of gay representation in American mass

media by reviewing the media images of LGBT people from 1950s to 2004. She points out

that “the number and quality of LGBT characters gradually increased throughout the 1970s

and 1980s”; but “the real breakthrough event occurred in 1997 with the coming-out of

sitcom lead character Ellen Morgan” and “since then, the number of LGBT main characters

has exploded” (Gibson, 2006, p.258). She argues that although, generally speaking, the

portrayals of sexual minorities on television has improved, there are still several issues: a)

they are more likely to be stereotypically portrayed; b) in those portrayals they are more

likely to be Caucasians revealing a lack of race diversity; and c) bisexuals are hardly to be

seen on TV.

Hart (2003) did a similar review by tracing the representation of gay men on American

television from the late 1960s to late 1990s. He employed Clark’s model and argues that

“gay men ultimately entered the respect stage of representation on American TV, as

defined by Clark (1969), in the 1990s” (ibid., p.601).

Instead of doing qualitative review, Fisher et al. (2007) did an analysis of gay, lesbian, and

bisexual content on TV from 2001 to 2003. It analysed more than 1000 programmes. It

found that about 15% of those programmes related non-heterosexual content and this

(26)

25 shows. Programmes on Cable networks were more likely to have non-heterosexual

content than those on commercial broadcast networks.

Raley and Lucas (2006) offer another “content analysis of prime-time network television

during the fall of 2001”. In the research they also used Clark’s model. They claim that “gay

male and lesbian characters are moving into Clark’s third stage of regulation and possibly

even the fourth stage of respect”. Apparently, their result is conflict with Hart (2003)’s

finding through his historical review which also employed Clark’s model.

Fouts and Inch (2005, p.35) conducted a content analysis focusing on a specific television

programme genre – sitcom. They analysed all the homosexual characters in 22 television

situation comedies in early October 2000 to find out their demographical features, and

“whether they verbally comment about sexual orientation” at that time. It shows that only 2%

of those 125 central characters are homosexual, which is far less than the “actual

prevalence rates of homosexuality in North America (10-13%), and that “all the

homosexual characters were male and in the 20- to 35-year-old age group”. “Homosexual

characters made significantly more comments about sexual orientation than heterosexual

characters” which “suggests that television writers/producers present sexual orientation as

a significant theme in the lives of homosexual characters”.

The above researches generally point out the same representation issues as in Stonewall

(27)

26 alongside a high percentage of stereotyping representation. These are the general issues

of visibility in a quantitative manner. However, in order to explore the in-depth issues of

those representations, scholars have started to use queer theory and queer perspective to

help them.

Raymond (2003) offers her positive account of queer representation by illustrating queer

characters in contemporary American TV fictions using a queer perspective, especially in

sitcoms. She argues that “queer images, themes, and tropes” of today are greatly different

from the “earlier eras where homosexuality could only be hinted at or, if explicit,

pathologized” (ibid., p.103). Queer characters are more likely to be treated as “folks” now.

This is a great challenge to the heteronormativity.

However, Avila-Saavedra (2009) argues that those gay male characters who appeared on

American TV screen did not challenge “heteronormative notions of masculinity and

hegemonic models”. His discourse analysed “three network and basic cable television

shows with gay male leading characters from 2004: Will & Grace (NBC), It’s All Relative

(ABC) and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy(Bravo)” (ibid., p.9). He argues that there is a

normalization of queer identity within all the three programmes which fits in the

heteronormativity and traditional gender-appropriate characteristics. He suggests that

“visibility is no longer an issue only for white affluent, gay males who hold traditional family

(28)

27 It is interesting here that both the above scholars use a queer theory/perspective to

analyse almost the same programmes, but give a totally different evaluation. This might

because of the subjectivity of qualitative research. The role of the researcher in that kind of

research is akin to that of normal audiences, in that they offer their own in-depth

understanding of the issues. In this research I am trying to find out the understanding from

audiences, who are also those who being represented in the mass media.

Two British studies on the queer representation focusing on specific TV genres were found.

Unlike the studies mentioned above (some have focused on sitcoms), these two analyse

the representation in the genres of drama and soap respectively.

Arthurs (2004) “maps the transition from secrecy, invisibility and shame to coming out,

visibility and pride in the history of gay and lesbian representation in British television” and

puts forward an explanation about the issues of gay, lesbian and queer sexualities in UK

drama. She argues that “television has lagged behind the developments in sexual

storytelling than in other cultural fields” because it pays much more attention on “avoiding

offence to its majority audience”. “Gay and lesbian narrative in television drama remain

relatively scarce and are still very constrained by the requirements for ‘respectability’ in the

popular forms of prime time” (Arthurs, 2004, p.127). She also claims that drama’s function

of “being a space for psychological complexity and pleasurable fantasy” “goes beyond the

(29)

28 Bradley (2013) explores “the representation of the gay romance” in the British long

-running soap –EastEnders, “in order to demonstrate the political and cultural impetus of

popular television genres and their influence on public opinion” (ibid., p.33). Specifically,

she analyses two gay romance storylines in EastEnders: the relationship between Colin

Russell and his partners, and Christian Clarke and Syed Masood. She argues that these

relationships are “employed by the programme makers to construct an elaborate Queer

identity that attempts to reflect a liberalisation of British culture and society. Additionally,

she puts forward an interesting point that because soap is essentially still a “woman’s”

genre, instead of fulfilling the gay men’s interests, it actually “offers up the gay male body

for heterosexual female consumption” (ibid., p.39). Therefore, the privilege of gay

storylines in soaps is romance. As a result, it “limits the parameters of gay identity” (ibid.).

Both of these two scholars demonstrate that political and commercial reasons influence

producers or scriptwriters when they set up a gay character or storyline. This is perhaps

because British TV corporations have a unique position to uphold between being a public

service broadcasting media and commercial organizations. In this context, the queer

representation on British TV is slightly different from the US. On one hand, they wish to

represent gay people in the media; on the other hand, pressure from audience numbers

(30)

29 2.2.2 Reception studies about queer representation

As mentioned earlier, there are not many reception studies about queer representation

and only two studies have been found.

Dhaenen (2012) conducted a reception study among Flemish viewers of queer resistance

in contemporary television fiction. The study was based on his previous qualitative textual

studies on the popular series (The Wire, Family Guy, Six Feet Under, Bothers & Sisters,

Torchwood and True Blood) which argues “these series represent gay characters and

themes that expose the oppressive practices of heteronormativity and represent viable

alternatives to the heteronormative way of living” (ibid., p.57). In order to explore the

audiences’ view the author selected a selection of sequences from those series and

showed them to his participants (aged between 18-35, homosexual or heterosexual).

He concludes four main points about the audiences’ reading of gay representation. First,

most of the participants generally consider the most of the characters are

non-stereotypical (ibid., p.61). If stereotypes do occur, none of them was described as

offensive or inappropriate. Because those stereotypes often appeared in comedies, they

think they are funny. Second, most of his participants think the gay representations were

realistic. Third, the opinions included contextualising the representation in terms of the

production. Fourth, some did not believe that the representation would have a great impact

(31)

30 participants consider gay representations “to be diversified, rounded, and nuanced”(ibid.,

p.65).

Farrell (2006) did another reception study focusing specifically on the HIV issue. She

explores how some gay male undergraduates perceived a fictional story in Queer as Folk

by showing collections of edited clips to small focus groups. She finds that all the

participants “are making meaning of this HIV storyline in relation to their own lives and

their understanding of gay culture” (ibid., p.201). Most of the participants believe the

representation is relatively accurate.

Dhaenen (2012)’s research may be similar to the present research, but he involves both

heterosexual and homosexual participants making its focus more of a comparison and the

consensus on the topic rather than listening to individuals’ deep voice. In Farrell (2006)’s

reception study her aim is a very specific HIV issue, so there is little comparison to be

made with this present study . More importantly, both of the two studies were done in an

artificial environment of viewing, which can raise questions regarding whether the results

truly reflect viewing habits. Results generated in this way may be more focussed, however,

it also limits the material which the participants are asked to consider. It was therefore

decided, for the purpose of this research, to explore the issue in a more natural way, in the

(32)

31

3 - Methodology

3.1 Why interview?

The main aim of this research is to understand how gay male audiences perceive the gay

male characters in recent or current TV serial fictions shown in the UK, to discover how

they engage with those characters, and to identify their personal views on them. Such

views are inherently subjective and dependent on individual contexts and characteristics

such as age, life experience, educational background and personality. This research is

concerned with finding out in depth those perceptions of gay male audiences which heavily

suggests a qualitative research approach rather than a quantitative one.

In order to know the views of an audience it is necessary to ask. Face to face

communications is the most obvious way to determine the opinions of people on an issue.

Therefore the most appropriate research method of this project would be interview, which

is defined as “a conversation between a researcher (someone who wishes to gain

information about a subject) and an informant (someone who presumably has information

of interest on the subject)” (Berger, 2000, p.257). By talking and asking “we can find out

about people’s ideas, their thoughts, their opinions, their attitudes, and what motivates

them” (ibid. p.113). Thus the data will be generated in a relatively natural way, which is

(33)

32 environment by using quantitative methods such as asking respondents to complete

questionnaires (Harding, 2013, p.10).

There are also two specific practical reasons why interview would be the most appropriate

way for the present research. Firstly, for homosexuals, “…their sexuality is not visible,

which is a different situation than for racial/ethnic minorities, whose visibility is quite

obvious if their heritage is marked on their bodies…” (Staiger, 2005, p.140). In other words,

people’s sexuality is not as obvious as their other demographic identities, such as gender,

age, and race. It is relatively difficult to find a large number of participants “who are

representative of some larger group of people of interest to us” (Berger, 2000, p.187) as in

a survey, the other common research method used “to get information about certain

groups of people” (ibid.).

Secondly, “discovering how audiences make sense of media messages is not easily done

through survey research”(Hansen et al., 1998, p.257). Although a survey can indeed

provide information about audiences’ attitudes and opinion (ibid.225), however, it cannot

provide “much richer and more sensitive type of data on the dynamics of audiences and

relations to media” (ibid. p.258). It is for precisely this reason that this research relies on

(34)

33 3.2 Finding participants

As mentioned before, sexuality is not visible; this makes it is more difficult to find

participants. In this context, snowball sampling becomes a useful way to find participants.

In this way, “one subject gives the researcher the name of another subject, who in turn

provides the name of a third, and so on” (Vogt, 1999; cited in Atkinson and Flint, 2001, p.2).

Thus it is usually used to find participants in hidden and hard-to-reach populations.

All my initial participants were found through gay social networks, and then they introduced

their friend(s) to take part in the study. In this way, a total number of 15 gay men were

involved in the project. In the process, I was seeking maximum possible variation in my

sample. “The principle is that if you deliberately try to interview a very different selection of

people, their aggregate answers can be close to the whole population's”(List, 2004).Thus

this method is usually used when it is difficult to find a large amount of random sample

(ibid.). In this project, the main variation I intend to make is age (see 7.1 in the appendices),

because “age is one of the most basic social categories of human existence” (Braungart

and Braungart, 1986, p.205) which influence individuals’ attitudes and behaviour as a

primary factor. Criteria other than age range were considered, such as educational level,

marital status, social background and ethnicity. Apparently, some of these criteria were

easier to fulfil than others. Finding different racial participants was problematic. Only one

(35)

34 3.3 Conducting Interviews

The majority of interviews that I conducted were individual in-depth interviews. The reason

for doing this is because I believe the perception of gay male TV characters by gay people

is more like to be akin to a personal narrative. In-depth individual interviews provide more

opportunity “to capture people’s individual voices and stories” (Hennink et al, 2011, cited in

Harding, 2013, p.22). However, I also undertook interviews with gay couples who agreed

to be interviewed together. Morley (2005) suggests that television viewing as a domestic

leisure activity is more likely to be social and collective which often take place in families.

Therefore, in interviews with gay couples, I was able to explore their shared

understandings via their interaction.

All the interviews were semi-structured, conducted face to face, and took place either at

my participant’s accommodation or in coffee shops. I had some basic questions which

were used as guidance, and to ensure consistency throughout all of the interviews (see

7.3 in the appendices). Then after asking the initial questions, I would pose specific

follow-up questions depending on each interviewee’s response. This enabled me to maintain the

casual and conversation-like nature of the interview. I chose to use face to face interviews

because “a full range of communication is possible, with both interviewer and respondent

able to respond to the non-verbal signs given by the other” (Harding, 2013, p.33). In order

(36)

35 them the opportunity to decide upon the location and timing of the interview. In the

interviews, I would invite my participants to speak freely, and I would encourage them to

expand upon their responses by the use of open questions. Although all the respondents

had a direct connection via a third party they were mainly unknown to me. I wanted them

to be open and honest in their response, therefore some element of intimacy, trust,

empathy and privacy needed to be shown in the way the interview was conducted in order

to encourage openness. Clearly, my participants varied in their responses, and as a result

the length of the interviews ranged from 19 minutes to 91 minutes (see 7.2 in the

appendices).

All the interviews were recorded and then verbatim typed into transcripts in order to

conduct thematic analysis. In this process, a pseudonym was given to each participant in

order to ensure their privacies were protected (see 7.1 in the appendices). Thematic

analysis was applied to the transcripts in order to facilitate summarising, selecting, and

interpreting. In this way, it was seeking to examine the commonality and differences

between each respondent, and the relationships among the themes that founds in the

interviews.

3.4 Limitations

Interviewing is the collection of data through direct verbal interaction which in itself creates

(37)

36 this can be compounded by subjectivity and bias. Bias problems were minimised by the

careful formulation of open questions asked in order to establish rapport with the

respondents but also to reduce mis-understanding by both the interviewer and the

respondent’s reply.

The analysis of semi-structured interviews can also be problematic. There is always a

concern about subjectivity in qualitative research. The analysis in qualitative studies “often

involves a substantial element of interpretation” (Harding, 2013, p.126). Hennink et al

(2011, p.9) suggest that in order to “correctly interpret the words of respondents, the

qualitative research must be empathetic, i.e. able to consider how the world looks to other

people” (quoted in Harding, 2013, p.85). However, it must be noticed that the researcher is

not the respondent himself, in the process of interpreting it is harder to be objective. The

data analyses are often subjective (ibid. p. 171). Whilst the interviews were

semi-structured the analysis of the data had to be very semi-structured to lessen subjectivity. For

example, in the systematic process of thematic analysis of my interviews, I always read

the transcripts several times, trying to reflect “the most likely meaning of the speaker” (ibid.

p.85) and any closer checking meant further examination of the transcripts to ensure the

story that I am telling in my findings “accurately reflects what was said by the respondents”

(38)

37

4 - Findings and discussion

4.1 Narrow representation

“They are still not quite represented in a broad base.” – Matt

All participants agree that the gay male representation in TV series is still not diversified.

They think it is narrow at both a demographic level and non-demographic features (such

as personality and behaviour).

First, some of my participants realise that the jobs that those gay characters do in the TV

series are limited in range. “They’re either hairdressers, or actors, or journalists, or luvvies,

or… they’re never just bloke down the road, who actually works for the council.” Matt said

this before he gave me a conclusion of his general impression of the gay male

representation in the TV series. “And there are no policemen” Cain added after Matt’s

saying. In fact “Work for the council” and “policemen” are just the kind of “enforcers or

administrators” jobs in the dominant social group which was mentioned in Clark’s model

(1969, cited in Fitzgerald, 2010) as a sign of the “Regulation” stage.

In addition, a few of the participants were calling for more professional people in the

portrayals of gay men in TV shows. Sam wondered if “instead of putting gay nurses into

the serials, can we have some gay doctors?” Actually, this was a personal reflection as he

is a general practitioner himself. Overall, participants consider that the jobs given to gay

(39)

38 traditionally associated with artistic and feminine features. There is a lack of characters

who have what would traditionally be considered to be masculine jobs. Cain told me that

he thought it was very good that recently there were lots of famous British sportspeople

who had come out as gay in real life, but sadly, this was not being portrayed in TV series.

Second, with regard to other demographic features, they did not think this was a good

representation either. For example, Eddy concluded that the representation was a very

small representation of white gay Britain. Eddy said: “When they display gay people [in TV

series], they’re always white, skinny, thin, they are never mixed race, from different ethnic

backgrounds”. Matt had come to the same conclusion as Eddy, and also commented on

the lack of other ethnicities. Moreover, Eddy pointed out that none of these programmes

featured someone who had a weight issue or a “bear” issue. This was relevant to him

because he belongs to the cub bear community of gay society, and there was no portrayal

of any aspect of that. Chris noticed that the characters presented are almost always

members of the younger gay community, and those middle-aged professionals and older

members of the LGBT community are not represented.

Third, in terms of the non-demographic features, the participants also feel that those gay

characters in TV are often of a very similar type. Richard offered three categories into

which he felt that all portrayed gay characters tend to be placed: “the extremely camp one,

(40)

39 gave a typical example. He said: “Jack in Will & Grace, Sean in Coronation Street and

Cameron in Modern Family are the extremely camp characters; Christian in EastEnders is

the very slutty one; and Kieren in In the Fleshhas the ‘illness’ of being a zombie”. He felt

that gay characters in TV shows “all seem to be the same”. John had a similar idea in that

he thought those characters are even more unitary. In his view, all gay men are portrayed

as being effeminate, obsessed with fashion, obsessed with looks, obsessed with weight

and appearance, and being good friends with girls. He argued that in fact most gay people

are not like these kinds of stereotypical media portrayals.

Matt also felt that gay characters are very rarely in a position of power and that they are

always made out to be vulnerable. “They never seem to be a CEO of a company, or if they

are, they are usually being blackmailed because they are gay and in that position of power”

said Matt. He thought this is underlining the notion that there is still something wrong with

being gay, and that there is always a sad aspect to any gay character.

However, they all did acknowledge that the number of gay characters had increased

dramatically from 30 or 40 years ago when it was rare to see gay people portrayed on TV.

They were also aware that the current representation is definitely broader than it used to

be, where before gay people were invariably the butt of any joke.

Above all, none of the participants seem satisfied with the representation in TV series. This

(41)

40 stereotypical way, and that positive portrayals of gay males were difficult to identify.

Participants “seem relatively happy with the TV they consume” (BBC, 2012, p.6), but are

unhappy with the representation of gay males. If we refer back to Clack’s (ibid.) model, in

their view the representation of gay males has passed through the second stage of

“Ridicule”, but has still not reached the “Regulation” stage.

4.2 Genres Issues

When we were discussing gay male representation in contemporary TV series on the

British small screen, most of the participants discussed it within the context of genres of

TV series, namely, comedy, sitcom, drama, and soap. As Hall (1993) points out, if an

event needs to be broadcasted as television news then it must encoded as a television

story; in this way television news as a genre impacts on the way in which they encode it. In

the view of my participants, it seems that in their decoding processes, genre still matters.

In fact the genre here is just a discourse, making meaning in the representation practices.

“Comedies, I think you have to take them with a pinch of salt,they’re all kind of

stereotypes.” – Stoner

For comedy, some participants felt that the representation is an extreme version of what is

found in real life, so they would not be offended by the stereotypical portrayals of gay men.

For instance, Stoner told me that because it is a comedy, people expect it to be slightly

(42)

41 everyday life. Like you do come across camp people, but, for example, Jack in Will &

Graceis really really camp”. Scott offered a similar comment to that of Stoner: “If you look

at comedy, it's almost a parody of a gay person; it’s almost the extreme version, or maybe

it’s the version that straight people want to see. So it’s almost a creation by straight people

of what a gay person should be like”.

They all felt that that extreme and stereotypical character representations in comedy exists

not only when gay people are being portrayed, but also that these extremes are applied to

straight people. Randy thought that people would generally laugh at anything that is

foreign to them, especially the extreme differences. Femininity is the binary opposition of

masculinity. Traditionally, men are supposed to be masculine. Therefore the extreme

femininity (camp) of gay men is just what makes people laugh. Jim even thought that camp

can be quite positive. He said: “Some people are offended if people laugh at things that

are camp, but it is meant to be laughed at, it’s meant to be fun and it’s meant to be

enjoyed. So it is a part of it really. Usually, part of the portrayal is that they are very

quick-witted, they have an answer to something, fairly sarcastic, big use of irony, clever, really”.

He thought that because the media generally portray gay people as being very camp, and

people like Graham Norton and Alan Carr are able to make a living on acting in a camp

(43)

42 accepting of that kind of image. “People wouldn’t be offended by someone who can make

them laugh, right?” Jim asked at the end of his answer.

Stoner developed this idea a bit further. He thought that because people expect and like to

see gay people being camp in comedies and clearly accept it, when gay people first

develop their gay identity, they want to behave camp and funny to make people laugh, and

to fit in with the media image of gay men in order to let people accept them. However, this

may not be the true self of the gay person. Stoner told me: “Until I became secure in who I

am myself, then I realised, wait a minute, hang on, I don’t have to wave my arms about

constantly. I can just sit there and relax and be myself”.

However, my participants showed more disagreement with one another when they talked

about the recent situation comedy, Vicious, which portrayed an elderly gay couple’s life.

Jim viewed Vicious as a series featuring older people who behave like they did when they

were younger. The humour came mainly from the time discrepancy rather than their

sexuality. He thought it is realistic because he knows two people very much like the couple

in the programme. He still found there was a balance in this series featuring the life of “two

bitchy puffs”. On one hand, part of their relationship is that they do not show each other

much affection. They score points off each other; they say things to put each other down

all the time. He viewed this as part of the comedy just like Roseanne where all the

(44)

43 are on their side; you are not thinking that they are horrible people. Because underneath it

all, you can tell there are moments when they show proper tenderness; they love each

other and support each other”. Overall, for him the gay couple in Viciousare the 1970’s

gay stereotype, but that did not bother him because compared with previous gay

characters such as the one in Gimme, Gimme, Gimme. In this he thought the whole point

of the character is that he is gay, and therefore he is funny. He thought that the sexuality in

Vicious is not a major issue; it is there, but the show is not all about that aspect. It is about

the two characters as people, and not about their sexuality.

Scott also liked Vicious, he felt that this programme tried to sell the straight population a

particular kind of image of gay lifestyle – very glamorous, a kind of faded glory that was

from an earlier era. He pointed out one particularly good feature of this series is that it is

about older gay people. He said: “Lots of LGBT programmes focus on younger people;

they forget that there are older LGBT people, while Vicious does not. The subliminal

message to the audiences is that gay people do grow older”. Another element which he

liked about this series was that it simply showed an older couple living in a very normal

kind of relationship. He said: “Yeah, they’re bitchy, they’re funny. There might be lots of

gay humour, but at the end of the day, it shows you a very loving couple who have been

dedicated to each other for 25 years”. He also told me when he watching this show he

(45)

44 Carr enjoyed watching it, but he felt it could be done better. “You got two brilliant gay

actors – Ian McKellen and Derek Jacobi – especially Ian did so much for the gay

community. I felt a bit disappointed because there wasn’t anything spectacular. It only

goes for cheap laughs, the double entendre” he said. He thought it was still stereotypical –

the old theatre queens.

Although some participants watched Vicious for fun and did not take it seriously, there

were several participants who expressed concern about this programmes, or who could

not stand it. Matt recalled a conversation he had with his personal trainer when Vicious

was being televised. The straight personal trainer had watched it, and he had felt

uncomfortable about it. He then asked Matt’s feelings on it (he knew Matt is gay), because

he was not sure whether or not he should laugh at it. He was worried that it would be the

same as laughing at black people or disabled people. Matt believed that this indicated

progress in our society, in that straight people are feeling uncomfortable with certain

aspects of the representation of gay men on TV. He thought it is generally because there

have been many improvements in such portrayals in the media over the past 30 years.

Matt felt that the representation of gay men in Vicious was a throwback to old days and it

was like a review of programmes like Rising Damp. He can see no progress in either the

(46)

45 He recalled the name-calling and bullying experiences he suffered from his peers when he

was a child, and when programmes with stereotypical camp gay characters were on air.

So now, 30 years later, he said he did not feel comfortable with this representation,

especially as it was written by a gay writer and starred two famous gay actors. If they felt

comfortable with it then he also should feel comfortable, however, he did not. He also

wondered whether this kind of representation will damage the progress which has been

made in the past decades. He was worried that name-calling and bullying of effeminate

boys will start again because of the show. He believed that kids will pick up stuff from TV

very quickly. His partner Cain agreed with him.

Luke and his partner did not like the programme at all; they both thought it was awful and it

was deliberately written to provide humour for straight people. “I was so depressed seeing

it even being allowed to air on TV. It was just like 50 years ago. It was terrible. It’s

depressing that they put on a programme like that. It was just two old men being very

bitchy and queeny to each other for laughs. It was not funny at all. It was a very destructive

relationship. There is not a single scene where one partner supports the other, they just

score points off each other, put each other down. I think that’s really contradictive”

Freeman interrupted Luke after he said he does not like the way the portraying gay men in

(47)

46 which confirms the old cliché of gay men and would undo the progress already made in

gay representation.

Above all, we can see that the participants’ understandings of the gay male representation

are extremely varied. Although there are some similar opinions, none of their

understandings is the same. If we refer back to Hall (1993)’s decoding theory. We can

assume that the “preferred reading” of this programme is simply that it is an enjoyable

show, and that it is not offensive from the producer or writer’s position, because no-one

would want to make an offensive programme. So Jim’s understanding (“It is a show about

an old couple who are still living a life like when they were younger. They put each other

down but they do care about each other. Sexuality is incidental from the humour”) and

Scott’s understanding (“it simply showed an older couple living in a very normal kind of

relationship” “Although they are bitchy and funny, they love each other”)are the “preferred

readings”. Carr offered a “preferred reading” as well, but it may possibly be seen also as a

“negotiated reading” (he thought that it is enjoyable, but it could be done better). Matt and

Cain’s reading would be “negotiated reading” (they doubted whether this programme is

offensive or not). Luke and Freeman thus offer the oppositional reading (they thought it is

offensive). It may be considered odd to count the number of holders of the three kinds of

readings, because it is not a quantitative research and is the view of only a very small