dibility depends. Yet with the volatile level of trust in trash television, an important mystery emerges: why are so many people, not all of them from backwoods America, willing to allow their lives become high drama on television? Executives are reluctant to point out that if people wanted to watch serious television, the history channel would be topping the Neilson ratings and we would have only earnest broadcasting on network prime time. Entertainment is a most effective medium, producers explain, to transmit information across. However, it seems that producers are not alone when it comes to using television as an avenue for self-interest.In the recent past, gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people had little to no presence on television. With the invention and exploitation of tabloid talk shows such as Ricki Lake, Geraldo, Jenny Jones, Richard Bey, and Jerry Springer, “denizens” on the jagged edges of the heterosexual mainstream now appear daily in living rooms across America. Often these appearances are revolting, and exploitative, with the prominence of the talk show genre predicated upon homophobic responses from the audience and guests on the show. Most gay advocates question the worth of appearing on such programs. At what greater price, they might ask, “visibility for abuse”?Talk shows are proponents of social tolerance, Joshua Gamson argues, and give much-needed visibility to sexual nonconformists. He adds, “For TV talk to work, everyone must be allowed to speak, or yell, regardless of their position…”(117). Using hundreds of transcripts, extensive interviews with supporting cast members, discussions with viewers, and his own experiences as an audience member as evidence Gamson concludes that talk shows impact public visibility for sexual nonconformists while also aggravating political tensions among those becoming visible. Nevertheless, the more important issue of visib...
