By the early 70s, things were changing. The radical impulses and movements of the 60s, – in particular the civil rights movement, the anti-Vietnam War movement, and the women's movement – had developed an approach of vocabulary, if you like, of social action, which was dominated by young people, it was in the streets and in your face. And the gay movement that exploded famously after Stonewall – but certainly didn't start with Stonewall, Stonewall was sort of the symbolic explosion that set it off – was very much one of we're tired of being hidden, and we want our space in the world. This became possible, I believe, because in the post-Second World War era, actual communities had formed. The gay community was a meaningless phrase until the 50s into the 60s, when actual self-sufficient urban communities began to form as, you know, what were then called gay ghettos, gay neighborhoods in big cities. And as they grew, they began to accrue economic and political power in cities. And this began to generate a sense of identity. And this motivated a politics of demanding respect, employment, housing, public accommodations. And in the 70s, this was happening in Philadelphia. At Penn, I was tenured and began to make demands of the university successfully. They agreed to put in non-discrimination policies. So it was not too surprising in some ways for me that I was able also to build on my academic work or make them connect in several ways. I could use my credentials as a professor at the Annenberg School at Penn to influence local media, to say, stop treating us badly. Because we understood, and I certainly understood, that the media shaped, in particular, the way the public understood groups that they didn't actually have direct contact with. This was a period in which almost all gay people were in the closet. And people form their images of gay people largely based on media images. So this was a natural congruence of both my ability to leverage this research, or these credentials as an activist, but also to begin to ask questions about the impact of media on images of gay people in society. Technically, this became possible for me in the mid 80s, when the General Social Survey, which is a very powerfully useful body of yearly studies of attitudes and beliefs, began finally, after a lot of effort on the part of George and myself, to include a question about television viewing. I could begin to look at television viewing as an independent variable and attitudes, including towards gay people, as a dependent variable. So charting these messages was completely consistent with the general model of cultivation, which is to say, how is the world portrayed to people and, you know, what are they going to see?