"Jann Wenner handled it beautifully, because he remained so incredibly silent," Yarbrough says. "Selfishly for me being gay, it made him seem less concerned than it would have to come out with blazing guns legally, which would perpetuate the stereotype that gayness is something dirty that shouldn't be talked about."

But some media observers say the Wenner story may exact a toll. They bemoan its implications for the state of journalism, which is inching further and further behind the closed closet and bedroom doors of public figures, gay and straight. For them, the issue is not about a gain in equality, but a loss of privacy.

"I don't think (outing Wenner was) based on any kind of highly thought-out journalistic or ethical position," says Bryce Nelson, director of graduate studies at the USC School of Journalism. "I think it's very questionable, the media getting into a lot of private matters that don't affect public performance, whether among corporate presidents or politicians, whether it's homosexual or heterosexual activity.

"If it's relevant to do articles on the sexual and marital life of the head of Rolling Stone, why not do them on all media organizations--the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post? They're more important than Rolling Stone. It's all titillation. If the media is going in this direction, there's no legitimate way to stop it."

*

Representatives for most mainstream newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, say their policy is to report on a public figure's sexual orientation only if it's relevant to the story, and such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis.

The New York Times did not report on Wenner's outing. New York Times spokeswoman Nancy Neilsen said in a statement: "It's not the newspaper's role to reveal private aspects of a person's life unless it's relevant to the story or if the person wishes the sexual information to be released." But she didn't return phone calls to explain why the New York Times did not consider it relevant in Wenner's case.

For the Los Angeles Times, "the question is one of intent," says Editor Shelby Coffey III. "Looking at people's private lives purely for either prurient reasons or in ways that are not affecting matters of public interest or the public lives of officials certainly raises questions.