Television and media are a huge part of American life, accounting for six and a half hours (McKinnon) of an average adolescent's life per day and over 4 hours (LGBT Community Survey 35) of the average LGBT person's  day through online consumption alone. Given this information, if a person has a regular eight hour sleeping schedule, the average child spends more than a third of their waking hours with media and the average LGBT person spends roughly a fourth of their day involved in media.  Considering how much of a person's day is consumed by media it makes sense that there are studies such as Mazur's The Effect of Movie Portrayals on Audience Attitudes About Nontraditional Families and Sexual Orientation that suggest media's portrayal of a topic effects how the viewer understands the topic.  Media is powerful.  Mainstream media can shape the way viewers see the world around them, therefore those responsible for creating media need to understand that their media has a power over the viewer.  To exclude whole groups of people in media representation can influence how people as a whole view those groups of people.  Despite this power, there is a gross underrepresentation of minorities in mainstream media.  One such minority which I will be focusing on is the LGBT community.  By analyzing studies and articles on media's representation of LGBT people one can see more representation with larger variety needs to be present in mainstream media.

Television and mainstream media are growing presences in the American life.  Not only is it consuming more and more of the average person's time (McKinnon, CMI) but it is being studied by scientists for its impact on the viewer (Fiske, Mazur, Dhaenens, McKinnon).  With the plethora of television shows on hundreds of channels, only roughly four percent of shows have recurring LGBT characters (GLAAD) and only one show targeting kids has recurring LGBT character (Thurm). Even with kids' growing access to more media they are not being introduced to LGBT people in media.  This lack of representation can hinder a child's ability to look at a situation with LGBT people with sympathy. There are studies such as Dr. Mazur's "The Effect of Movie Portrayals on Audience Attitudes About Nontraditional Families and Sexual Orientation, Journal of Homosexuality" proving that viewing media with LGBT imagery and characters effect viewers' opinions in a positive way (Mazur) as well as research articles pointing out that "much of the adversity gay men and women encounter can be explained by" acknowledging the dominant assumption of heterosexuality and gender norms (Teenage Queerness 2).  Given the insight provided by Mazur and Dhaenen, one can come to the conclusion that LGBT representation is important for the breaking down of harmful heteronormative thinking.  Heteronormativity is the assumption of someone's sexuality and behavior based on their sex.  For instance, a man is assumed to be sexually interested in women, have certain general desires and traits such as an interest in sports, a deep voice, overly developed muscles, etc.  Heteronormativity in media affects children not only by pushing certain ideals of a heterosexual relationship but also by confining young people into gender norms.  For instance, in the majority of classic Disney princess film the man has to be heroic and muscular with broad shoulders and a tiny waist and the woman has to be a doe eyed submissive beauty.  Media can give a very narrow depiction of people and romantic relationships that is stifling for kids. Heteronormativity can be especially trapping when the viewer is not heterosexual.  In current media kids have almost no exposure to LGBT characters in their shows or movies (GLAAD). If a child is LGBT then they do not get to see people like them in relationships. They only see a narrow depiction of a relationship that does not account for their basic desires in a relationship (i.e. the gender of their partner).

The lack of LGBT characters in mainstream media is harmful to kids who are trying to come to terms with their own sexualities.  If a child wants anything other than a monogamous heterosexual fairytale relationship there is no representation and as such no role models through media to help the child feel validated.  This lack of validation and constant pushing of the heteronormative ideal can lead a child to be terribly confused and hateful towards themselves just as I experience when I was younger.  I felt like I needed to change myself to fit this ideal and choose to be with a man even though I felt attraction to women. I did not understand that being bisexual was alright and relatively common even though I had never seen it in any of the many media stories available to me.  I knew no adults other than my family, thus I knew no LGBT adults in my real life either.  I did not understand my feelings towards women because I did not have the language to express my desires.  To me "girlfriend" was always associated with "boyfriend" and "wife" was always associated with "husband" so I did not even know what to call a person in a relationship with a person of the same gender. I did not know what a stable homosexual relationship looked like.  Due to my ignorance, I did not know what to do about my feelings, so I took it out on myself, feeling like I was abnormal and thus wrong.  While this is an anecdote, it is one that has been repeated to me similarly by my peers.  It is important to understand that "implicit is the awareness of the role of media in the formation of gay and lesbian identity, both at the individual level and at the level of community" (Fejes), meaning media shapes the identity of LGBT people, for better or for worse. The "formation of the gay and lesbian identity" in youth is stunted with a lack of representation in accessible media.

Lack of representation in media doesn't just hurt those who are underrepresented, though.  Even kids who are not LGBT are effected either by being in a family that is not a classic nuclear family or by being prevented from learning and growing an understanding of other groups of people.  Even the Carolinian Creed -- the document which lays out what the University of South Carolina holds as important actions for all students to remember and apply to themselves -- says that students should "learn from differences in people" and "demonstrate concern for others, their feelings, and their need for conditions which support their work and development." Institutions across the United States claim to have similar opinions on people's growth through the understanding of others.  Despite this general understanding that one can grow through the understanding of those dissimilar to one's self, mass media does not readily represent those who are not already part of the majority.  This lack of representation, following the thinking of institutions like South Carolina, is stunting the growth of people and children who otherwise have limited interaction with people of other groups such as the LGBT community.

Despite the general leaning towards acceptance and valuing the understanding of differences, there are those who do not wish to have LGBT people represented in mainstream media such as Coleman and the thousands of people who have signed her petition to further repress LGBT representation. Coleman believes that to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or trans is a choice and that this choice as perverse and counter to Christian morals.  Coleman and the thousands of people who have signed her petition do not wish their children or themselves to be submitted to such "propaganda" (Coleman). People of this belief are part of the reason representation is so low in media today.  Before 1934, despite general disapproval of homosexuality, depictions of LGBT characters were relatively common (Fejes), though often used for comedic affect.  Fejes notes in his article on LGBT representation in the media, "with the strengthening of the Production Code in 1934 and the injection of Catholic-based morality into Hollywood movie content, however, portrayals of  explicit homosexual or homoerotic material, either positive or negative, were highly censored" (Fejes 397).  This precedent then ruled for the remainder of the twentieth century until the early 2000s when homosexuality started to reemerge in media.  Unfortunately, Coleman and those she is writing for believe homosexuality is wrong and thus should not be shown on mainstream television. Coleman and her audience want to not only have no LGBT people on television, but in real life as well (Coleman).  To cater to their desires is to give in to a group of people who wish to remain ignorant of other people's perspectives.  To give in to the desire for ignorance goes against the very idea of media, therefore such views should be held in the viewer's discretion and not the media's prohibitions.

Not only Coleman and those who seek to oppress and ignore LGBT people, but those who do not acknowledge any lack of representation must also be addressed.  Many such as those at Fox News believe the amount of LGBT representation in media today is enough (Gutfeld).  Gutfeld and those he talked to in his interview on Fox News believe for the most part that, while there is not such a thing as too much representation, the level of representation in media today is good. While Gutfeld and his guests do not seem to hold animosity towards LGBT people and it should be appreciated that they are talking about this issue on a major news network, there are some aspects of the interview that should be kept in mind.  None of the people in the interview identified as LGBT (Gutfeld), leading to a clear problem of perspective.  Having no representation has an effect on a person that another person who has a plethora of representation may not understand.  People need to have this awareness when discussing a minority's representation.  One must also know that this excerpt is from Gutfeld's old show Red Eye, which airs at 3:00 AM. Even though Fox is talking about representation in the media, it is when the majority to potential viewers are asleep.  Gutfeld and the author of the accompanying article may believe that the media should be congratulated for its inclusivity, but it is evident that here is a long way to go just by looking at Gutfeld's interview.

There are also those who believe that more representation would scare off those who wish not to view LGBT characters. Media companies are just that: companies.  They wish to make a profit, and as such they make media that is easily consumable by as many people as possible.  Considering the argument made earlier -- that it is the viewer's discretion that should be held accountable rather than media in this case -- coupled with those who seek out media with representation, the media companies should not be worried.  Speaking just from my own experience, I and several LGBT friends of mine have all watched a show or movie purely because we heard it had good representation.  When in doubt, companies should err on the side of including many people in their cast, and as such, their demographic. 

One can have a lot of representation in media while having the story still take priority because the real world has a world of representation and to match that diversity is feasible. Some people can't see the diversity in their own world clearly due to restraints people have in their own point of view.  If media could fill in the gaps that individuals have in their own experience of diversity, it would open up the rest of the world.  It would help children understand themselves as well as others. LGBT people who are out and open to proclaiming their sexuality make up roughly four percent of the population (Gates) yet there is only one children's show currently airing with an openly LGBT character(s), namely Steven Universe and even that show could not escape censorship (Thrum). Media today is far from inclusive of LGBT characters and mainstream media needs to continue to move forward and add to the representation not only of LGBT youth but of other minorities as well.

