Ray Richmond speaks on Mervgate
I just spoke by telephone to The Hollywood Reporter's Ray Richmond, whose online column on Merv Griffin disappeared from his blog Past Deadline in the last couple of hours. (Disclosure: I have known Ray for many years, though we haven't spoken in more than a decade.) This was our conversation:
Q. Are you still employed by The Hollywood Reporter?
A. Yes.
Q. Who owns Past Deadline?
A. Nielsen and The Hollywood Reporter. [Nielsen is the parent company of The Hollywood Reporter.]
Q. Do you think they had the right to remove your column?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you believe it was right?
A. No. I don’t believe it is right and I’m disappointed. I don’t believe that any wrong was perpetrated here.
Q. Do you think they were pressured to take it down?
A. Sure. I’m sure it was taken down because there was fear of litigation, and that the post was libelous and/or defamatory. And I certainly don’t believe that to be the case.
Q. Have you talked to your editors or bosses at The Hollywood Reporter?
A. I will have discussions with them, and I will hope at some point we can have it restored online. It seems that scotching the post gives the appearance of liability when there isn’t any. It was simply a factual, very informed discussion of the larger issue of the media’s difficulty in allowing someone to be labeled as gay in the mainstream, as if that is somehow a huge shame. My whole reason for doing the piece for the Reporter was to shine a light on that fact. Unfortunately that appears to be the case...even internally.
Q. Have you been contacted by anyone representing Merv Griffin?
A. No. I have not.
Q. What are you going to do next?
A. I am hopeful that I am going to defend my piece. I don’t feel anybody at the Reporter is culpable with regard to this –- this is about me and what I wrote in my column. This is my view, my take, my feeling.
I did this not with malice in my heart, but with concern. I wanted to make sure that the truth was out there and not a version of it that allowed everyone to make Merv the subject of gossip or the butt of jokes. I wanted to put the truth out there in a loving and concerned way. One could make the point that it was his business alone, but I don’t think this was true, because he was a public figure and this was who the man was.
Q. Anything else?
A. And I am proud of The Hollywood Reporter for letting me run it in its pages.
Q. What happens next?
A. I don't know.
I LOVE IT. Kudos to you, Ray! (And you, Kevin!)
Posted by: LLR | August 17, 2007 at 03:52 PM
Looks like word is spreading on this whole "Mervgate" censorship thing, and people are not happy. Perhaps this guy said it best - "grow some balls, hollywood reporter":
http://www.pen15club.net/2007/08/17/griffin-done/
I will look forward to your updates.
Posted by: D Greene | August 17, 2007 at 03:59 PM
Thank you so much Ray for speaking the simple truth. It is amazing that people get so offended by the mere mention of someone being gay. They are willing to go to outragous lengths to demand that gays stay in the closet. How sick.
Posted by: Darrion | August 17, 2007 at 04:22 PM
I am an openly gay man and find this entire thing offensive. Merv Griffin was a public figure and it is entirely appropriate to out him, especially after his death---if anything, it should have happened sooner. The only way gay men and women are going to continue to gain social acceptance and civil liberties is by demonstrating that we are everywhere, including positions of leadership and celebrity. If anything, when a public figure stays in the closet it sends a message that there is something wrong with being gay---that is wrong.
Posted by: LKitsch | August 17, 2007 at 04:43 PM
I’m with L. Kitsch. We need to get to the point where someone’s sexuality is just another mundane fact about them –- and Ray’s piece is a step in that direction.
Posted by: Amy Alkon | August 17, 2007 at 05:06 PM
So Isaiah Washington gets canned for a gay slur, but discussing the open secret that Merv Griffin was a homosexual is also a slur worthy of censorship?
Posted by: Kate | August 17, 2007 at 05:16 PM
It's so strange... I read Ray's column this morning and thought nothing beyond how poignant and auspicious it was. It surprises and saddens me that The Reporter or anyone felt any need to remove it from the Internet, particularly once the decision was made to put it up in the first place.
I thought the column truly honored who he truly was, and that if he couldn't have that in life, I was thankful that he could have that recognition in death.
Posted by: lizriz | August 17, 2007 at 05:20 PM
Great point about Isaiah Washington, Kate. I just want to say that Ray Richmond is a special writer, so it's only fitting that he would be the one to write such a senstive and honest piece about Merv Griffin, someone that he clearly had a heartfelt respect and love for. I am just sorry to see this whole thing got so blown out of proportion and so much negativity was swirling around this. But if the end result is to see all the positive support of this man's bold writings and it invites more readers to it, then more power to him, I say.
Posted by: Rebecca | August 17, 2007 at 05:27 PM
The weird thing is, anyone who ever worked for him knew he was gay. What exactly would THR or Richmond be sued for?
Posted by: Former Merv employee | August 17, 2007 at 07:46 PM
Merv is dead.
He cannot sue anyone.
His estate cannot sue anyone.
Did anyone at THR consult an atorney?
Basic libel law: The dead or their estate cannot sue.
If an attorney for THR ordered the item "pulled" the attorney is incompetent.
First Amendment Attorney
Posted by: Bob North Smithfield | August 17, 2007 at 07:58 PM
Seems like most are missing the point.
People professing to have loved Merv are now "honoring" him by acting in a manner loathesome to his privacy.
So where exactly, is the love?
Posted by: Whatstherealnews | August 18, 2007 at 09:31 AM