Last week, Hollywood Reporter columnist Ray Richmond wrote a column titled "Griffin Never Revealed Man Behind the Curtain" that frankly disclosed that Griffin was gay. In hindsight, the opening paragraph to seems almost prophetic for the way it questions how the media treated the powerful producer's closet:

Merv Griffin was gay.

There. Is that plain enough for ya? No gossip, no scandal, no snickering behind the back. Just reality. Why should that be so uncomfortable to contemplate? Why is it so difficult to write? Why are we still so jittery even about raising the issue in purportedly liberal-minded Hollywood, in 2007? We can refer to it casually in conversation without a second thought, but the mainstream media still somehow remains trapped in the Dark Ages as relates to the gay label. Even in the capital of entertainment — in a business where homosexuality isn't exactly a rare phenomenon — it's still spoken of in hushed tones or, more often, not at all.

Richmond's column was quickly criticized for outing Griffin and the Reporter quickly pulled the column from its website and from Richmond's blog (the column was re-posted within an hour). But Reuters had already picked up the story and carried it to several news sources, including Yahoo, which kept the story up even after Reuters pulled it.

Richmond has posted a timeline of the controversy, as well as a reflection on the issues it raised. Richmond denies that the column was revised before it was reposted, attributing any changes observed to Reuters. Richmond wonders if there would have been as much outrage if Griffin had died penniless, noting "It appears that $1.6 billion will buy an awful lot of closet space."

However, I see some shame to be found in Griffin's dying a closeted yet incredibly powerful man. Richmond hints at it in his original column when he notes what Griffin could have achieved as an out producer:

But what a powerful message Griffin might have sent had he squired his male companions around town rather than Eva Gabor, his longtime good friend and platonic public pal. Imagine the amount of good Merv could have done as a well-respected, hugely successful, beloved and uncloseted gay man in embodying a positive image.

If you acknowledge Griffin's many accomplishments and his influence in Hollywood while also acknowledging that he's gay, that raises the question of what Griffin might have accomplished if he hadn't stayed in the closet. At the end of Richmond's original column, he notes that there aren't a lot of high-powered stars, executives or public figures who are openly gay. As Richmond puts it, "while it might seem everything has changed today, little actually has."