Setting the Record Straight (So to Speak) on My Merv Griffin Uproar

So you may have heard that I wrote a column that appeared in the Hollywood Reporter last Friday (8/17) in which I had the temerity to declare that the late Merv Griffin was gay. I wasn't naive to the controversy the piece had the potential to arouse, yet I also wasn't quite prepared for the intensity of the firestorm. As debate and dialogue are very good things, however, it struck me as a valuable discussion in that the word "gay" still appears to touch such a raw, impassioned nerve in American society -- particularly as it may relate to a beloved, recently-deceased icon.

Sparking this level of tumult was not my intention going in, nor certainly was specifically "outing" Griffin. My goal was instead to see if honesty, sensitivity, context and tone made any difference whatsoever when addressing the subject of sexual orientation -- or if snickering behind someone's back and making them the object of sophomoric jokes remained somehow more palatable so long as the elephant in the room stayed publicly unacknowledged.

I've learned much about this particular issue over the past six days amidst the support, attacks, inaccuracies, charges and heated discourse of the Internet and blogosphere. I thought this a good time to take a deep breath, share some observations and clarify a few misconceptions.

--The timing of the column (running on the same day as Merv's memorial service) was unfortunate and entirely coincidental. My weekly column "The Pulse" publishes now on Fridays. There was no disrespect intended, and I apologize to anyone who took it as such.

--It's true that both the column and a spinoff post on this blog were briefly pulled off of the Internet by The Hollywood Reporter (which owns and oversees this site) on Friday afternoon in the chaos that erupted over the column's having been published. There were loud protests and anger from some in the Hollywood community. The specific details are less important than the fact both the column and blog post were restored online within an hour, for which I was greatly relieved.

--There have been reports in various corners of cyberspace that when the Griffin column and blog went back online, they contained radical content edits and a softened headline. Neither is true. The original headline -- both in the paper and online -- was, and remained, "Griffin Never Revealed Man Behind the Curtain." The confusion stems from the Reuters news service (with which the Reporter is linked) and its decision to feature its own, decidedly misleading and sensational headline: "Merv Griffin Died a Closeted Homosexual." That headline was never used by The Hollywood Reporter.

--There was one other previous headline over the blog post, that being, "Saying What Merv Griffin Never Felt He Could." It was decided during the day last Friday to change that to match the column headline for consistency, rather than editorial, reasons.

--Reuters had kept my Griffin column up on its own site for roughly 14 hours, beginning the evening of Aug. 16, before scrapping most of the piece, relegating what was left to a blog and attaching to the bottom the vague explanation that suddenly the column "did not meet our standards for news" -- which evidently were rewritten on the afternoon of Aug. 17. This proved a disturbing bit of literary backpeddling that I'm surprised has been largely ignored by the mainstream media community -- with the notable exception of the well-respected journalism trade Editor & Publisher. As for Reuters, its decision struck me as both confounding and utterly gutless. (Yahoo News, to its credit, picked up the Reuters version and kept it up on its site even after Reuters deep-sixed it.)

--The Hollywood Reporter has stood by me admirably throughout what evolved into an emotionally-charged and heated situation, and my superiors deserve props for showing some real mettle and blinking only briefly. Incoming editor Elizabeth Guider opined upon reflection that the column was not "malicious, mendacious or unfair-minded" and therefore was comfortable not merely with its legality but its message as well. She understood that it's sometimes the job of columnists to shake up the status quo as well as to "spark more discussion and deal with different viewpoints. That's what free speech is about." Amen.

--It still strikes me as somewhat astounding that the people for whom I work agreed to publish the column in the first place. Whether inadvertant or purposeful, it was rather brave -- even more so than my having written it, as Hollywood trades rarely permit such provocative discussion within their pages.

What I continue to wrestle with is the whole question of how such a gentle, respectful utterance could provoke such a severe and polarizing reaction. I naturally acknowledge that there are two ways of looking at this, and one is that I had no right to override Griffin's personal decision to keep his private life his own business. I opted instead to err on the side of truth and candor, with the idea that disclosing Merv's being gay can't personally impact him after death and -- unless we attach shame to it -- ought not to taint his legacy in any way. I still firmly believe that and would retract nothing I wrote in the column.

I have to wonder if the response in defense of keeping Griffin's secret life a secret post-mortem would have been as acute had he died penniless and forgotten. It would seem there is a direct relationship between the size of one's estate and the level of security guarding his or her heretofore undisclosed sexual orientation. And it appears that $1.6 billion will buy an awful lot of closet space.

Indeed, as I stressed in the column, this was never about any sort of Great Revelation. It was about the wider point as relates to both the public's and the media's fear in raising the gay issue. It was about the ongoing stigma that I would have thought we'd be past, not its lingering stain on Merv Griffin's reputation. Because in my view, there is no stain. His homosexuality should be treated as another mundane detail in the larger picture of a great and fascinating life. That it remains so profoundly significant and scandalous in the minds of so many should alert us to the land mines that obstruct the arduous journey to enlightenment.

(Photo courtesy WireImage.com)

Comments

[Joe Bua]

Ray, if those who would snipe can't recognize that your intentions were honorable, they never will.

And that's their problem.

I believe you've handled all this very admirably.

[Lenni]

You're one classy guy, Ray. And thanks for the update.

[LLR]

Beautifully written. ALL of it.

[Annie T]

I thought your initial post was respectful and sincere, as is this one. I hadn't known that Merv Griffin was gay, but when I found out, I didn't think anything was titillating or shocking. Instead, I thought—as I often do—that it's sad that people still have to hide who they are. There should be no shame in being gay, and although your story rattled a few cages, frankly, those cages need to be rattled.

[Tabloid Baby]

Your piece spoke for itself, Ray. It spoke volumes about your decency, Merv's greatness and America's hypocricy.

Thanks.

[Jim]

"The Hollywood Reporter has stood by me admirably throughout what evolved into an emotionally-charged and heated situation, and my superiors deserve props for showing some real mettle and blinking only briefly"

No offense, but that is a bizarre statement. If they had terminated your employment would you have praised them for "courageous conduct under the stress of such a heated controversy. I cannot thank Hollywood Reporter enough for showing true backbone in releasing me from their employ and signaling a true intent to embrace independence and the very soul of freedom for our press. I thank you, and may God Bless Hollywood Reporter for their noble conviction in firing me."

WTF?

[Donna B.]

Ray,

I guess I'm confused. Are you Merv's biographer? His executor? A relative who is carrying out Merv's final wishes?

No? Then I guess you're a gossipmonger and a busybody, who has decided on your own that even if Merv didn't want his personal sex life to become public, you'd do it for him. Just two days after he died, just to, you know, get some attention for yourself and feel like a Hollywood guy in the know. You're right, it's not brave of you. Outing yourself would be brave. (We're all ears, Ray!) Outing someone else, practically on their deathbed, is truly despicable.

That's an interesting take you have, too, that he was "ashamed" of being gay. So you are a mind-reader, as well! Could he just feel it's none of your damned business? Could he be protecting someone else? Maybe even his own relatives? Could he, just maybe, have decided that a private sex life is a hell of a lot more exciting when it's just between two people?

Not in your world, I guess.

[OldOldLady Of The Hills]

The most shocking part of all of this is that there was this incredible over-reaction to what was pretty much a known fact...I find it frightening beyond words that your column in The Reporter and here on your blog would make such HUGE waves....Too bad these same people don't take this false horrid outrage and vilify this illegal wear we are in and those in the administration that have gotten us into it...THAT is a disgusting horrifying scandal...not that someone was gay....! I thought that all your columns about Merv Griffin were loving caring respectful words in every way, including your so called "outing" of this terrific man.
I would be very interested to know what his son Tony thinks about all this. Do you happen to know that, Ray? He has to know how much you respected his father and appreciated his sense of humor and his talent! You are a loving caring man, Ray....Screw the Naysayers who cannot bear to hear about anybody being gay cause THEY think it is a Shanda!

[Mel]

Ray, just be thankful you don't have to go through life as Donna Barstow.

[John]

Let me add my voice to the chorus of compliments both on the article and on this column. Good to have the Reporter's role clarified.

It is indeed sad that the whole affair created such waves. For those people who still seem to feel that gayness is an issue, I have just two words:

Israeli Army.

If one of the toughest fighting forces in the world doesn't have a problem with openly gay people ... then, Hollywood, WTF?

[McQuaidLA]

I couldn't believe that in this day and age, anyone in "The Industry" would react to an honest, compassionate report in such an Antedeluvian Way - so much for that "liberal" Hollywood crowd, eh?

I have a suggestion for all those thoughtful folks who "respect" Merv's decision to keep his "sexlife" private; the next time you discuss a homosexual's lifestyle, substitute the words "love" for "sex," and "life" for "lifestyle."

[Irene DeBlasio]

OY VEY! What perfect timing!
What a journalist!
Your mother must be so proud...

[Theodora]

Let me preface my comments with the fact that I generally enjoy your observations.

But I'm a bit confused here...

While you claim that your 'memorial' to Merv was some sort of ennobled 'tribute' --the intention was not at all read that way.

The Hollywood Reporter, Variety and Daily Variety have ALWAYS been about the technical aspects of the entertainment industry.

"Gossip" was always tendered in a professional manner by people who were RESPECTED in the Community for their *tactful* handling of the "outs and abouts" of celebs and production execs...

At least --those were the Trade publications I became accustomed to...

In the past year --the lines have been greatly blurred between TRADE publications and TABLOID bullshit. The bloodlust has been blinding...

For the fact that this column is 'moderated' --the majority of snert-commentary could have been AVOIDED by the person "pulling the trigger."

You don't need to be a Mensa scholar to read between the lines...

You ENJOYED the notariety --so you let it burn out of control.

What did you accomplish in this?

Did Merv suddenly come back to life??

Did the Gay Community offer you a commendation for your 'revelations'???

When I lived in West Hollywood --I was part of the 'minority' --being straight.

It didn't stop me from working with and among 'gay people'. We still got out Call Sheets, Sides, Production reports --and scheduled dailies...

When I was at IFA --our clients --gay and straight *still* got paid per their contractual agreements; the few employees that were gay did their jobs as expected... What they did after business hours was their business...

So --the point of my rambling is...

WHY is it important to differentiate between someone's personal and business life???

Unless Merv was some sort of predator --he didn't deserve to be 'memorialized' on the day of his funeral in that manner...

Whether he was a billionaire or a beggar --he was still a guy who contributed to an industry in a major way.

"temerity" aside, Ray... you need to reacquaint yourself with the concept of journalistic integrity. Or go work for the bloodsuckers on the Craparazzi Tabloid shows...

[The Big Sis]

As a matter of fact, Irene, both his mother AND sister are very proud now that you mention it.

[Mary S.]

So what if Merv was gay? Just what does that have to do with his contributions to society? Nothing! When other well known men have died, no one says "he was NOT gay!" It seems to me that gay guys are trying to make some "claim to fame" pointing this out. In addition, his sexual preference is his own business and why do people feel they need to advertise their sexual preference anyway????? GET OVER IT!!! I and many others are sick of it!

[The Big Sis]

Theodora, I always enjoy your posts and have a great deal of respect for your opinions and insights. So now I'M a little confused about why you don't get what Ray was trying to do with that article. The way I interpret it, the fact that Merv Griffin was gay should have been no big deal, but sadly he was from a generation that found the whole idea completely unacceptable.

Well, one would hope that we've come a long way since Merv started out in the entertainment industry, and his sexual orientation should be no more shocking than if Ray said, "Oh, by the way, did you know that Merv was a vegetarian?" (possible public reaction: 'oh geez -- not a real man')

or perhaps, "...and here's a part of his life that may surprise you, he had reptiles as pets!" (possible public reaction: 'god, what a loony')

or even "Of course, another side to Merv that his public never saw was that he was terrified of flying" (possible public reaction: 'what a frickin' pussy!')

None of these statements is true, but my point is that Merv's sexual orientation should illicit nothing more than a simple, "Oh, that's interesting", if THAT!

Obviously, our society is not yet ready to be so accepting of the differences that make us all so unique. But the very fact that Merv was a beloved celebrity make people look up to him, respect his opinions, even want to emulate him.

If people know that he was gay, perhaps a few more homophobes will come over into the light and realize that being gay is no more frightening than being straight. If a decent, intelligent, funny guy like Merv could be gay, then maybe it's not such a bad thing after all.

Ray wasn't being a gossip, Theodora. I think he was just trying to provide a little more info to complete the picture of Merv and perhaps in the process break down a few more of those idiotic "us vs them" barriers.

SO WHAT IF MERV WAS GAY?? It shouldn't even be an issue.

[Joe Bua]

Man, are there a lot of gay skeletons in a lot of people's closets here in these comments.

I saw someone asked what Tony Griffin might think. Do you really think he didn't know that his father was gay? Are you that stupid?

And, furthermore, Ray could not have made his intentions any more clear about what he wrote and why, and yet you people (and you know who you are) continue to turn it into something that it is not, which is an attack on you, personally.

Get this, Merv is dead, he has no feelings that can be hurt. The people he chose to surround himself with are the people that he cared about and they knew what his sexual orientation was. Yes, even Eva knew.

The only people who are upset about what Merv wrote are you crazy people here leaving these comments.

If you wanna know what the series of events were that resulted in him writing this post, click over to my blog and read:

http://iamatvjunkie.typepad.com/i_am_a_tv_junkie_a_blog_f/2007/08/clearing-the-ai.html

You wanna take someone on, take me on, I'm a gay man who doesn't think there's anything wrong with being so.

What I would say to Ray right now is that he should close commenting on this post and ban everyone that has been attacking his credibility. But I think he's too kind for that.

I'm sure he would like it that his intentions were understood by every one of you dissenters, but I don't think you people have the skills.

[Mel]

First there was Donna Barstow, and now Theodora. Maybe in time we will have enough science and chemistry in our world to prevent other human beings from ever becoming like this pair of defective fruitcakes. I live for that day, but until then, fruitcake makes a very bad gift (remember that).

[Strepsi]

re: BigSis: "When other well known men have died, no one says "he was NOT gay!"

Actually, they do. Often, even when the person WAS gay, they still do -- from Richard Francis' Burton's wife burning his academic research after he died onward. It is part of maintaining a 'noble' memorial for great people, in a society which ddoes not think that a great person can be gay.

The outrage in the comments even here, and moreso in the mainstream media, that being gay "taints" someone's memory, or is shameful in any way, is disgusting. America, you have got a lot of growing up to do.

[Mervyn Green]

"SO WHAT IF MERV WAS GAY?? It shouldn't even be an issue."

I think you made many people's point with that comment.

If it shouldn't be an issue, then why write an article about it?

Mr. Griffin cannot even respond to the article.

I will most likely never convince Mr. Richmond, (nor his proud older sibling who ironically doesn't include her name) the original article, while well-written, was misguided in judgment.

But I'm a proud and out gay man who thinks just that.

The argument isn't "you should be ashamed of being homosexual." I'm a big fan, actually.

It's about
a) violating someone else's privacy (never kind)
b) posthumously (seems a bit cowardly).

Mr. Griffin took great pains to keep his private life just that, and if he decided to reveal it posthumously, he would have wrote something to be read in the event of his death.

It's foolish to just choose which parts of "to each his own" suit or do not suit one's purpose, and chuck the rest.

It would have been a hoot to have had Mr. Griffin come out. But he didn't. Would it have helped the gay rights cause? Maybe.

But I've met people who would think homosexuality was wrong if I showed them a picture of God making out with Carson Kressley.

So everyone just needs to worry about keeping their side of the street clean, and leave it at that.

I'm hoping it wasn't a case of Mr. Richmond diverting attention and admiration away from Mr. Griffin to himself. The close proximity to the death doesn't help his case, as others have pointed out.

But I think (pray) this was a matter of heart-in-the-right-place with a pinch of emotional-hoof-in-mouth disease. Perhaps feeling left out of the grieving process. Who knows.

I just hope no one puts Mr. Richmond nor his loved ones in the same position, namely revealing things he wouldn't choose to reveal himself.