Hi Lynne, I'm really glad this topic has come up. I can really see why W&G is copping this criticism. Although I watched it from time to time and found it somewhat amusing (actually it's only Karen that I like), it has always frustrated me that it never had any balls (pardon my frankness). It never pushed any buttons, told any truths, or traversed any territory that clearly it had a lot of potential for. Rather, it stayed safe, silly, and worst of all, covered. It may not be entirely fair to ask a sit-com to make a serious difference, but I think most try - just think of Family Ties when Michael J Fox takes speed to study longer and gets hooked (drugs are bad M'Kay). Humour is a fantastic tool to discuss serious issues, I guess, because it feels less like a sermon.
On the other hand, I do think W&G does (or at least did) have its place. I don't remember there ever being a show before for which the central characters are gay. Laughable as the show is, there wasn't one before it so it must be acknowledged as a trailblazer - if nothing else it got the word gay on television every week for eight years. So even if it didn't live up to its potential, while regrettable, we shouldn't completely dismiss it as having served no purpose. Maybe it helped to bring us to this point where Brokeback (and the soon to be copycats and wannabes) can be made and seen.
I don't know Lynne, I get a little tired of all the shock-jock reporters out there that like to make a big scene, say something "controversial", and get their voices heard. Let's see them write something as profound and moving as Brokeback Mountain, then maybe they can throw a few rocks at others shows like W&G. Here's a simple test, if there were a 3 or 4 serious gay-centric television shows on right now, and W&G was just in the mix, would we have as much of problem with its silliness?
