Merv Griffin, the entertainment mogul who passed away the other day at 82, has been rightfully lionized for his role in Hollywood history. The producer of “Jeopardy” and “Wheel of Fortune” turned those game shows into a multimillion-dollar empire, and did equally well as a hotelier/casino mogul.
What you didn’t see in the MSM obits (aside from the one in the New York Times) was a mention of Griffin’s openly closeted life.
In a Rolling Stone piece about Griffin in 2006, it notes that Merv was sued twice in 1991, the first a “palimony” lawsuit by a former employee, the second a charge from “Dance Fever” host Deney Terrio that the impresario made a pass at him then fired him for not complying. Both suits were tossed out. However:
Merv does not refute the underlying implication in both cases: that he is gay. Nor does he admit to it. Instead, he mentions the high-profile relationship that he began with actress Eva Gabor at the time of his legal troubles. They were photographed everywhere: Atlantic City, La Quinta, Hollywood premieres. Merv says that they discussed marriage, and he parries any direct questions about his sexual orientation. ‘’You’re asking an eighty-year-old man about his sexuality right now!'’ he cries. ‘’Get a life!'’You may ask, how is this kind of gossip journalism? Those in the field of celeb journo would probably disagree with you that it isn’t journalism. The field may be tawdry and invasive (look at how they hound poor Lindsay Lohan), but this kind of reporting is big bucks. Coverage of openly-closeted gay celebrities versus het ones is still a struggle for the MSM. There have been quite a few articles written about the straight-washing of gay public figures in bios and obits, even ones where the figure was socially out, out within their industry and it’s known in the media.
The MSM managed to “straight-wash” Luther Vandross with nary a mention of his homosexuality back in 2005. As I said back then, the real problem is that the news media, which has no problem recounting the endless het romances of stars (real or alleged). The “legitimate” press can be ridiculously squeamish about reporting basic facts about gay public figures (such as the partner left behind).
In Vandross’s situation (as well as in the posthumous media de-gaying cases of Susan Sontag and Ismail Merchant), the coverage bent over backwards, straining any sense of credibility, to avoid any fact-finding about that might reveal he was gay, even if Vandross was openly gay in his social circles — but not to his fan base.
***
Michelangelo Signorile doesn’t hold back in his examination of Merv Griffin’s Dangerous Closet. The author of the landmark Queer in America (1993) discussed how the protected, openly closeted life the late entertainer and mogul led to silence during the peak of the AIDS epidemic. Griffin, a close friend of the Reagans, and who served as a pallbearer at the former president’s funeral, chose not to leverage his personal influence.
Griffin’s closet kept him shockingly silent while he had access to the president of the United States as his own people were dying. This man was intimate with the Reagans (and Nancy Reagan in particular) during the height of the AIDS epidemic in 80s, with few treatments available and fear-mongering having gripped the media. Griffin’s gay brothers — his friends, his lovers, his people across America, around the world — suffered and met horrific deaths. And yet, because he was closeted it is highly unlikely he ever made the connection for the Reagans (between himself and those who were suffering and dying), pointed out the government negligence, or even talked openly as a gay person. They likely knew, but it was unspoken, and that allowed all involved to just rationalize things — to say to themselves that, well, Merv, is not like those other people, and to always believe that maybe it wasn’t true anyway, and that he was truly dating Eva Gabor. He also stayed silent about the epidemic in the media — ironic since he was a man very much at the center of the media industry and in shaping communications and television in this country — when his voice would have made a huge difference.It is clearly a personal decision to become an out activist when you’re not a political figure or elected official. It’s unfortunate and tragic that, given the access to the Reagans he had, Griffin didn’t feel he could do more, even privately. As he was a multimillionaire and smart businessman, there was little risk to him financially for coming out. Griffin was a man of a different era when it came to the closet, it’s unlikely that any celebrity of his era would have been willing to go on the record in the media for any kind of gay rights advocacy. It just didn’t happen. And the right likes it that way — witness their increasing hysteria as more gays and lesbians kick the closet door open.…Griffin’s closet had him firing gay men who’d actually made it up through the ranks of his own company, simply because they were openly gay. There is a story in Queer in America about a man identified as “The Mogul” who did just that. I can now reveal that The Mogul is Merv Griffin. Open homosexuality is a threat to the closeted, and powerful people in the closet like Merv Griffin will often do whatever it takes to squash those who are open and who might advocate that all among the powerful should come out.
Merv Griffin accomplished a lot and is, in his death, being held up as a example of a stellar Hollywood businessman. But he should also be held up as man who, like Malcolm Forbes before him, was hugely influential and powerful and yet still allowed the closet and homophobia to manipulate his life, and to cause him to do harm to his own people. That should not be forgotten.
Go read the rest.
19 Responses to “The dangerous closet of ‘The Mogul’”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
How fun is this, I just finished grading the final papers for my “Mass Media and Queer America” class, and this post shows up
One of the things I tried to stress during one of my lectures is that the closet is a social institution, it is a set of social practices. The news media actively construct this institution through their “inning” of celebrities, as well as through the construction of certain types of narratives, and employment practices, etc., etc.
The point is that the closet is not just an individual’s private life, as someone will inevitably argue. The closet is a set of social practices all based in the notion that homosexuality must be hidden in order to prop up heterosexual supremacy. The closet isn’t a right; it’s an oppressive institution that distorts the humanity and relationships of those forced to live in its confines.
Dude frequented the chickenhawk and sweater-you-know-what (a word I don’t ever use) bars of Palm Springs. Also, I think he owned a Gay bar there called “Daddy Warbucks” or something. Anyway …I don’t think it was any big secret.
“Openly closeted.” Now there’s an oxymoron if I ever heard one.
In Vandross’s situation (as well as in the posthumous media de-gaying cases of Susan Sontag and Ismail Merchant), the coverage bent over backwards, straining any sense of credibility, to avoid any fact-finding about that might reveal he was gay, even if Vandross was openly gay in his social circles — but not to his fan base.
You mean that the producer of Maurice was gay? Who’d'a thunk it!
More seriously, I’ve seen some pretty nasty slams against Annie Leibovitz for daring to talk about her relationship with Sontag after her death. I mean, god forbid she should be allowed to discuss her 20-year relationship with the woman she was raising children with. Apparently, that’s just not done!
I am very iffy on the issue of outing people. On an individual level — a neighbor, say, or a coworker — I reluctantly support their right to be out or not. But a super rich guy like Merv? Come on! I can understand that it is partly a generational thing, but to fire out employees? What a jerk.
MAJeff, that is brilliant about the closet being socially constructed. I hadn’t actually thought about it in that way before, but you are so right. (I haven’t read too much queer theory on the closet — I tend to read more on passing and gender expressions.) Just like we as a culture see the world as male or female, and thus anyone outside of those boxes is abnormal, we also see the world as straight, and force queer people to pronounce themselves different.
Anyone, what are your thoughts on outing generally?
I would only consider outing appropriate in the case of someone who persecutes or hurts other gay people, like Roy Cohn. From the evidence presented here, it seems like Griffin definitely belongs.
Magda, I would have to say I am against outing anyone. While I wouldn’t want to see my friends acting like hypocrites, I have had some gay friends that might have had harm done to them if they had been out (guys that lived in my frat house). You know how those frat boys can be. I probably wouldn’t ever say anything about someone being gay unless it was known among the company at that time. That’s just the way I am.
My thoughts on outing. Granted, that’s a couple years old.
I’m with the people who think that outing a gay person who is actively working against gay interests is justified. In general, forcable outing is not at all a good thing; but there’s exceptions to almost everything, and I’ll make an exception for closeted gay people harming gay interests.
From my POV its a matter of reciprocation. They’ve made it evident that they’re willing to harm gay people simply for being gay, this makes the forcable outing simple retaliation. And retaliation isn’t necessarially pretty or nice, but its justified.
Here’s another view on outing:
http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/06/tyler_whitney_just_18_and_already_outed
Don’t say MSM, say Traditional Media. First of all, it’s a right-wing pejorative, second, by calling them “mainstream media”, you are saying that blogs like yours are not mainstream. “Mainstream” is whatever is read by the most people, and the blogs have a bigger readership than most big-name “main-stream-media” publications. “Traditional Media” relegates those old dinosaurs to the dustbin of history, where they belong.
In general, the people who are in favor of “outing” people are really only talking about hypocrites who profit from the generosity of the gay community while doing them harm either politically or socially. Griffin was doing both - taking advantage of openly gay people to troll for boyfriends and hook-ups (notoriously, from what’s be said) while firing openly gay employees and threatening through publicists people who might out him or discuss his romantic life.
I’ve never heard a single person suggest that your frat brother or fellow employee or neighbor down the street should be outed, so all those arguments are really non-starters.
Okay, I’ll bite on the outing question. I’m very pro-outing of powerful hypocrites, perfectly happy with outing of non-hypocitical closeted celebrities, and not really anti-outing of anybody except for dependent teens whose wellbeing would be threatened as a result.
Being culturally American, I do have a mind-your-own-business ethic that would prevent me from casually outing people for sport. But I think the harm that closeted adults face (in this society, I mean) by being outed is exaggerated, and the harm remaining closeted does to others is underappreciated.
Every gain in legal equality and social acceptance that gay people have made in the last 50 years is the indirect result of gay people willing to make themselves known; every gay person who doesn’t has a small part in undermining the freedom of those who do.
And even those people who would lose status, income, or the approval of peers as a result of being outed are likely to be better for it in the long run. “Passing” constantly as someone you’re not carries a great psychological burden, all the more so when it constrains something as fundamental to our happiness as affiliation and sexual behavior.
Okay, I’ll bite on the outing question. I’m very pro-outing of powerful hypocrites, perfectly happy with outing of non-hypocitical closeted celebrities, and not really anti-outing of anybody except for dependent teens whose wellbeing would be threatened as a result.
Being culturally American, I do have a mind-your-own-business ethic that would prevent me from casually outing people for sport. But I think the harm that closeted adults face (in this society, I mean) by being outed is exaggerated, and the harm remaining closeted does to others is underappreciated.
Every gain in legal equality and social acceptance that gay people have made in the last 50 years is the indirect result of gay people willing to make themselves known; every gay person who doesn’t has a small part in undermining the freedom of those who do.
And even those people who would lose status, income, or the approval of peers as a result of being outed are likely to be better for it in the long run. “Passing” constantly as someone you’re not carries a great psychological burden, all the more so when it constrains something as fundamental to our happiness as affiliation and sexual behavior.
dammit, y’alls comments are really hard to work
I met Merv Griffin in the mid-seventies. Actually, I had dinner with him along with some other well known people. I was very surprised when he arrived at dinner wearing a purple jumpsuit, quite different from what he wore during the day. I was in my early twenties then and really didn’t understand what was going on with him. My initial reaction was that he was wearing one of the weirdest outfits I had ever seen and had very bad taste in clothes. He was a totally different person than what I saw on his TV show. By the end of the dinner, I had no doubt that he was gay. It’s hard to believe that this was not widely known in Hollywood for a very long time. He didn’t seem to be interested in hiding it at all. I remember reading the Gabor stuff and laughing. It is so sad that someone who accomplished so much could not accept who he was and be at peace with himself. Let’s hope he is now.
Its sadly pathetic that Merv Griffin could rationalize his openly closeted status. It reminds of Michelle Malkin’s stance which all progressives find disgusting regarding immigration and even her pov on concentration camps for the Japanese. What of the African-Americans that justify their status and belief in the neo-con movement and agenda?
Its impossible for me to find any hint of logical reasoning for why any of the aforementioned groups or individuals find it easy to turn their backs ‘on their own people’. But there it is..and it happens all the time.
I think it comes down to their ego and their own self value..in their eyes and minds their personal agenda is more important than the wellbeing of the group as a whole.
Sorry, but I just can’t muster up a lot of sympathy for someone who was too concerned with his own dinner-party status to advocate on behalf of his community.
And I say the same to every self-serving prick in the public eye: your silence is tantamount to aiding and abetting a demonic frame to be applied to the lives of ordinary, out queer Americans by those who are terrified of difference. Fuck you and your thrones of privilege - y’all deserve to be outed!
It’s not like this bastard had to really fear for his job in later years - certainly not in the way that the Joe Schmoe “little guy” can be fired in 31 states just for being gay.
Hope you learned something on your way to small-h hell, Merv - and it’s something Audre Lord could have told you: your silence will not protect you.
I first heard Merv Griffin was gay when I was 16, and a friend whose dad worked with him in TV told me. Then again, when I was 23, a former boss told me he saw Merv at an underground party for gays only and Merv was there, and signed a few autographs. So I have known for many years and I just wonder what his son, who seems to be straight thinks. His son went to the same private school I attended and he was quite the ladies man.