Diana and the Media

[royalanthropologist]

Hi guys. I would like your thoughts on Diana and the media. These are some of the questions I would like to explore:

1. Should monarchies engage with the media or shut them off?
2. Was the media Diana's ally or did they eventually destroy her?
3. What was the role of the media in the Waleses marriage?
4. Is the media entirely dishonest? Are we being manipulated and it is all a bunch of lies?

My own thoughts are that if and when the British monarchy ends, they can look back to the era or Rupert Murdoch as the beginning of the final decline. The press coverage in the 1980s and 1990s was nothing short of atrocious. They were malicious lies and attempts to pit the Waleses against one another. The media could cherry pick events in order to drive their narrative. An example is Prince Charles' biography which was ignored except for a single paragraph about Camilla. Then you had that panorama interview which if you see it in the cold light of day, is nowhere as controversial as the media made it to be. Even Earl Spencer's speech was nowhere as critical of the royal family as the media stated. Instead they ignored his criticism of them and made it all about the monarchy. The coverage of Diana's death was the single most disgusting display of arrogance, sanctimony, deceit and intrigue by the media. What are your thoughts guys?

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

 :goodpost: A broad range of over-arching questions and ideas that are at the heart of events and guide events today.

1. I think in the monarchy's perfect world, they would own the media and be able to interact on their terms, but I think the monarchy has no choice but to engage with the media. Diana was the first to truly understand that and attempt to harness its power. The post war world marked the end of monarchy being seen as a seat of direct power, and more of a "theme park for adults". While it had been building for decades before, power,rule and might would require more than ever consent of the people through their elected government (how much of that is a show is of course up for debate).

So for the monarchy, the press is their vital oxygen of public appeal for continued funding, allegiance and a touchstone for warm genuflection of days of yore. Although one wonders what ppl that grew up/come of age in the War of the Wales will have for nostalgic memories.

2. As for the media and Diana, id have to say the answer is both, or its more of a grey area. As far as getting out of her situation with the marriage, it was a vital lifeline. however, one could argue that, rightly or wrongly, it was the publicity she got early on that sowed the seeds of the destruction of her marriage. She was able in the final years of her life to turn their attentions to her causes and to good works, however the deeper issue is the fact that so many were around and the reasons they were there, was a negative influence in Diana's life.

The media reminds me of a catalyst, they quicken the pace of the reaction (ie the life,marriage, divorce and death of Diana) they dont get consumed in the process. Theyre still always around, for instance I was greatly troubled to hear and see Richard Kay talk about not sticking up for Diana in the press around the time of the proposed marriage of C&C as it was now the current story. Never mind that much of the food in his belly, clothes on his back and roof over his head was due to Diana and ppl wanting to hear about her. I think he was worried about future access to the RF and was a sad example of what have you done for me lately...

End result, I think it was a benefit early on, as it was the public adulation that cause her to question her situation and if there was a life outside the comfortable suffocation of the RF. While her lot may have been easier in the first few years without them, if the troubles in the marriage still happened(which they would have) she wouldnt have had a valuable card to play. But after playing it, it got away from her, and the nature of its Faustian bargain came to light.

3. The media allowed everything in the marriage to happen larger than life, every movement,gesture, etc. was under scrutiny in public, each day a steady drip of doubts, questions to mull over. I wonder if any argument could truly ever get resolved like ordinary couples get the chance to.

It was a platform for both sides to strike at each other, but it also allowed Diana to win the public over, and bring her situation to light. But I think the media has no interest in keeping the marriage together, there was more sales in it splitting apart and the resultant rows, remarriages, etc. that would keep them fed for decades, they hoped. A plain, humdrum marriage sells little papers.

4. Well this question takes on a special significance after the last 6 months or so. The MSM (mainstream media) is at an all time low for integrity, however, the tabloids were often years ahead of the "truth" as covered by them in terms of the marriage and events. I think one has to take what they say with a huge grain of salt, from things like manufacturing consent to fake news, the media can only benefit from removal of the gatekeepers.

As for as C&D were concerned, the broadsheets seemed more keen to keep the status quo, whereas the tabloids were the internet news of their day, some rubbish, but also truth well ahead of the mainstream, but thats looking at it from the north american view, I didnt get the British tabs everyday.

I hear what your saying about the Murdoch era being the beginning of the end, it was the first time the press had real power in directing the events rather than just reporting on them. Stories lead to briefings and counter briefings, and on and on. The press knew with the funeral week, that it was like the end of a market bubble and they all wanted to cash in.

[TLLK]

An interesting topic  @royalanthropologist  :thumbsup:.

1.. Yes they must engage with them but the media has shown it will do ANYTHING to remain in some form of its current and past state. I would expect that the royals will speak out like Andrew has recently if the media continues to opt for sensational headlines over facts in order to attract more revenue. Also I would expect that there will be other hacking episodes in the future to keep readership. 

2. Like @Duch_Luver_4ever has stated it is a grey area. I  would believe that if she were alive today that  Diana would have regretted becoming to close to them in the past. I believe that she would be far more careful with them today.

3. Agree with @Duch_Luver_4ever's comments.

4. It's not entirely dishonest...at least with the traffic and weather updates!  The media is fighting for its very survival. Like a trapped and wounded animal they will do, say, print and editorialize  ANYTHING in order to survive. My cousin's career with the Los Angeles Times ended four years ago. In the years prior to her position being cut her advertising territory had grown but her budget had shrunk. In the months preceding she was laying off more of her team. She saw the writing on the wall, but needed to keep the position for as long as possible.

[royalanthropologist]

Thanks for thoughts. I am frankly surprised that Richard Kay abandoned ship (so to speak) once there was a new mistress of the royal house. Just goes to show how duplicitous the press can be. They would sell their grandma for a headline. In hindsight Diana was their victim even though many thought she had them in the palm of their hands. They patronized and trivialized her. I hate to say this but the impression you get from reading the press these days is that Diana was as neurotic, needy, manipulative, loose shrew. However when you really look at her life, you see that she is not too much different from any modern woman. They just turned her into a caricature of a Disney princess gone bad. 

Also there was some story about Harry saying his real thoughts about Camilla in the News of the World phone hacking scandal but it all became hush, hush. Does anyone know about this story?

[TLLK]

Well to be honest some of those stories regarding her behavior were compounded when the Settlen tapes were released. With those and the Panorama interview,  it seemed  IMO that towards the end of her life she  did exercise poor judgement and put her trust in people that she didn't know very well while  cutting long standing friends without any explanation. Had she lived I hope that she would have found it easier to trust those longtime friends again over those who wished to exploit her.

The press went into survival mode again at her death in order to deflect any criticism of themselves onto others: BRF, her family etc...So yes I do agree that she was their victim.

[royalanthropologist]

Those Settlen tapes just showed why Diana desperately needed a mum. You know with your mum you can confess everything and be sure that they will give you the best advice they have. It also means that you have at least one person in the world who loves you unconditionally. If Frances called her daughter a "slut" then it must have been doubly wounding.

You know I was never a Trump fan but when he won I was kinda pleased because it gave the mainstream media a bloody nose. They were so ready to pop the champagne for Queen Hillary, you could almost see them in tears when Michigan was called for Trump. At least we now know that the media is not all powerful and ordinary people can make their voices heard. I so hope Trump does not do so badly that we hand the power back to the mainstream media.

[TLLK]

 :goodpost: If not a mum than at least someone who could be a surrogate one. I do know that she had some older female friends throughout the years, but not all of those relationships stayed intact unfortunately. :no: Had she lived I do believe that Diana would have come to regret relaying so much personal information with Peter Settelen.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

 :goodpost: both of you, yes, you can see it in the documentary "Reinventing the Royals" its on youtube, so sad cause always thought of him as "her" journalist.

I agree the lack of a steady ballast on her side of the family was to bedevil her all her life. Sadly both were going through a rough patch then, with the whole "HRH" interview to raise money for her church, she was I think by then having the start of her neuro-muscular issues, as well as alcohol.

I think if it wasnt for the Morton book, we wouldnt have had the Settlen tapes. I think she was so "comfortable" as she'd discussed a lot of those things on tape already, so it was probably easier the second time around. She was smart to have hung on to the tapes as opposed to the morton tapes, so that was something, but she should have destroyed them once she was ok to make speeches on her own.

Perhaps she wanted them someday to be discovered, or maybe she thought of them like a diary. I think on balance im glad they were made available, they provide valuable insights from a historical level, but its a shame it had to happen the way it did with the court fight, etc.

***See @TLLK posted while im typing this, yes she did have Raine to lean on a bit after she made the tapes she made up with her, but I think that was too little too late in terms of her being able to give advice that could help in her current situation. Has she lived, im sure she'd have been a valuable advisor. Also had Diana lived, we'd never have seen the tapes, im betting, as she had them, unless Burell went rogue or something, or they got binned by accident.***

I too would have liked for her to have had a few more years to kind of right the ship in terms of her behavior towards friends and ex friends. Some of it was the scrutiny, the divorce, trying to find a new life, but I also think some of it was as a result of her being exposed to the windsors and having people at her beck and call and staff to either screen calls or to change ones cell phone number every six months.

I as well was pleased by the election @royalanthropologist because of the media, and the GOP themselves, once ppl like Bush jr and sr said they were voting for Hillary, I knew something smelled fishy, like a fix was in to have her put in no matter what. Reminded me of the Iraq war drumbeat over WMD's and such. They took me from holding my nose for Hillary to crossing over(last time was Reagan in 80).

Yes the level of butthurt was legendary this election, walking around with their "Madam President" newsweek, maybe I can sell them some Cleveland Indians World Series Winner shirts to go with that book LOLZ (for non baseball fans, they lost the world series, but cause it went to seven games, both teams print winning shirts to have them ready at the instant the games over, so usually most years theres some embarrassing stuff to get rid of like that newsweek.)

Oh yeah, as for the News of the World story, havent heard anything, im thinking if there was a tape except that made it online we'd have heard of it. From the hints they give, it seems Harry's less ready to make nice than William, but he kind of has to as heir.

[TLLK]

You know I was never a Trump fan but when he won I was kinda pleased because it gave the mainstream media a bloody nose. They were so ready to pop the champagne for Queen Hillary, you could almost see them in tears when Michigan was called for Trump. At least we now know that the media is not all powerful and ordinary people can make their voices heard. I so hope Trump does not do so badly that we hand the power back to the mainstream media.

Wasn't a fan of either of our choices this year and I ended up voting third party. It was an awful election year but I was thankful that we didn't see a repeat of  Gore-Bush 2000 with the election undetermined for weeks.

@Duch_Luver_4ever -Be every thankful that your election campaigns do not go one for over a YEAR or more!

Absolutely stunned when Trump won but glad to see that the media got their due.  I believe that both candidates were flawed, but the obvious push from the media needed to be answered.
Double post auto-merged: January 08, 2017, 10:09:05 PM

I'm sorry for Diana that her relationships with her mother, siblings and step-parents was frequently marred by bouts of friction on all sides. Jane appears to have been the only steady one IMHO and even that relationship had its issues due to Robert Fellowes position.

I can certainly understand her sons' attitude toward the media and those who sold or continue to sell their relationship with their mother (professional, personal, romantic) for a quick pay out.

Had Diana lived into the mobile phone age I do believe that she like her sons would have been a target for hackers.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

Well some would say the left/dems are doing their best to get close to the 2000 election with the popular vote,riots, threatening electoral college members, trotting out hollywood oldsters to plead for them to change their vote, etc. when they were so quick to demand that Trump take the election results peacefully and accept them, heck, Hillary had to be physically restrained and sedated election night. Congrats on voting hopefully a candidate closer to what you wanted, if more ppl voted third party candidate the two party monopoly might loosen.

I gotta say as an heavy alternative media consumer, the victory didnt surprise me, I knew for several months the polls were inaccurate, only thing that was a surprise was what factor election fraud might be, but every time they recounted Trump got more votes LOLZ poor Stein doing Hillary's dirty work. But things like Virginias Governor autopen pardoning the same number on convicts so they could vote was the amount she the state, and he and his wife were connected to CGI.

Im glad we have quick campaigns here in Canada, but sometimes we have too many elections with minority gov'ts and sometimes the incumbent will call a snap election if they know they have a bad piece of legislation or something that they want a fresh mandate for. But yes, I think the whole intention to run, the primaries, its never ending in the US, make it 6 mts max.

Ah, Jane, my second fav Spencer, I think her temperment was due to the fact she was a little younger than Sarah, being second born, might have been some different parenting expectations, and avoided the worst of the parental troubles,as theres very few stories of her with childhood or adolescent hijinx(although if that skinnydipping pic is real...). Diana always described her as steady, almost bland, and im sure the marriage with Robert also steadies her as well, but also put tremendous pressure on her in the 90s,which is evident on her face today.

No doubt that Diana would have been a hackers dream with the number of phones she had, social media accounts, not to mention things like wikileaks and such getting ahold of info other govt's obtained under I think its called five or eyes or something (US,UK, CAN, AUS, NZ) have an agreement to get around domestic spying laws they spy on each others citizens, eg NZ on US, thats how they knew some of the stuff about her final days. Also idk if shed have been robust with pc security, although on the Squidgy call she says she covers her tracks, so who knows^^.

[michelle0187]

Hi guys. I would like your thoughts on Diana and the media. These are some of the questions I would like to explore:

1. Should monarchies engage with the media or shut them off?
2. Was the media Diana's ally or did they eventually destroy her?
3. What was the role of the media in the Waleses marriage?
4. Is the media entirely dishonest? Are we being manipulated and it is all a bunch of lies?

My own thoughts are that if and when the British monarchy ends, they can look back to the era or Rupert Murdoch as the beginning of the final decline. The press coverage in the 1980s and 1990s was nothing short of atrocious. They were malicious lies and attempts to pit the Waleses against one another. The media could cherry pick events in order to drive their narrative. An example is Prince Charles' biography which was ignored except for a single paragraph about Camilla. Then you had that panorama interview which if you see it in the cold light of day, is nowhere as controversial as the media made it to be. Even Earl Spencer's speech was nowhere as critical of the royal family as the media stated. Instead they ignored his criticism of them and made it all about the monarchy. The coverage of Diana's death was the single most disgusting display of arrogance, sanctimony, deceit and intrigue by the media. What are your thoughts guys?

1.) The media probably has the least amount of respect for the brf. I'm not really aware of the media's treatment of other royal families but I assume it's better in comparison. The media needs them as much as they need the royals. The royals can't or should shut them off because without being seen "working" will come across as lazy people who don't care about respect for the tax paying public.

2) I believe the media was interested in portraying diana in a light that sold like hotcakes. The public wanted her to appear flawless in 80s because the public loved that, but I could be wrong. I think di was pretty smart to choose who in the media  she could trust to be 150% behind her and loyal. A lot were sent out to destroy her character for certain reasons. Charles had his own team that would go on television, leak horrible things and camilla flapping her lips to the sun in the 80s. i get the impression that the mistreatment of the uk media was one of her main reasons for wanting to live in the US.

3)Not sure how to answer this one.

4) the media kind of have to be cautious about what they write . The RF often hire  people to get the best pictures of royals like the trio, at their tours and engagements. It's the only thing ive heard was frustrating to reporters and photographers. I know one reporter  expressed his frustration on camera that wk has refused to speak with them twice. Quite a few who don't even want to trash them in the news, are being blocked. The main thing I believe some go easy on popular royals is the fear of losing access to the Cambridge kids.

[Curryong]

I think...
The media and the royals co-existed in a comfortable 'you scratch my back I'll scratch yours' kind of way for decades since King George V's reign. It was a deferential age It was deferential on the part of the press too, who were ruled by their bosses, the Press barons, in a way that just wouldn't happen nowadays. One tiny example. A well known Daily Express photographer was covering a Royal event in the 1950's and he happened to catch the Queen's dress blowing up showing off her knickers. When he got back to the DE building and was developing his photos he received a telephone call from the top boss, Sir Max Aitken. He said to the photographer 'I hear a photograph of HM was taken that could be embarrassing? The photographer confirmed that he had. "Destroy it immediately!" Aitken said. And it was.

My belief is that this cosy relationship was torn to bits by the War of the Wales, including the information that Diana put out out there in interviews, and it hasn't been the same since. The spectacle of both sides leaking information about Charles and Diana's relationship, much of which was true, also changed for ever, I think, the British public's perception of the BRF as the perfect family, a view that had pertained for generations.

However, I think that, although the media certainly played a part in destroying that image most Royal reporters, British themselves of course, clung on to the fairytale they themselves had assiduously built up of the Wales marriage for as long as they could. It was Royal correspondents themselves 'falling in love' with Diana when she first arrived on the scene that provided the brickwork for that make believe edifice that finally came crashing down in the mid 1990's. Royal reporters themselves were very reluctant to let go of their fairy tale IMO. This was in spite of rare exceptions by journalists, such as Tina Brown's article 'The Mouse that Roared' and various other tiny articles appearing about the turnover of Wales staff etc early in the marriage.

The nature of media has changed so much in the last twenty years. In the Diana era magazines and the printed word ruled. Many of us can remember getting hold of magazines and poring over them to see Diana fashions and news. That just wouldn't happen nowadays and the press is fighting for its very survival. The Internet has changed everything and people now can anonymously sit behind a computer and make their minds up about royals and everything else.
They are able to praise, criticise, tear apart public figures, including royals. Immediately a story appears now there are people online calling BS on it or lapping it up. How can newspapers coming out once a day compete with that, though the Daily Fail with its comments section does try its hardest!

I grew up of course with the printed word and the deference. I do wonder how Royal Press Offices are going to maintain interest in the Royals when/if newspapers die off completely and they are left with TV news grabs and digital news. If a person buys a newspaper and a Royal appearance is front page it's hard to ignore. As we know, it is very very easy to completely ignore sites and news online if you aren't interested. Of course Royal weddings, births and funerals will always attract a certain segment of the TV audience, but free to air TV is also dying.

The Cambridges attract attention in the Press. However they have introduced a rather sour note in the relationship with the Press by rigorously controlling their image and threatening to sue over privacy. They have also released  photos of their children online before the Press have a chance to publish. Time will tell I guess whether this approach will be helpful to the BRF in the future. At the moment the Daily Fail has a great share of online news coverage and is perfectly capable of playing good cop bad cop with the image of members of the BRF whenever it feels like it. It will be interesting to see if the respect the Queen still has among most journalists continues into the new reign with Charles. We are in interesting times, I think.
Very sorry for the length of this epistle! 

[TLLK]

1.) The media probably has the least amount of respect for the brf. I'm not really aware of the media's treatment of other royal families but I assume it's better in comparison. The media needs them as much as they need the royals. The royals can't or should shut them off because without being seen "working" will come across as lazy people who don't care about respect for the tax paying public.

It depends upon the country and the royal family. The Spanish pink press can be ruthless and Letizia's family has born the brunt of their poisoned pens on more than one occasion. There is a percentage who were appalled that the divorced, newscaster,  granddaughter of a taxi driver would be the future queen.  They can on occasion make the British press look tame by comparison. They did back off for a bit after Letizia's sister committed suicide in 2008. After the coup failed and JC pushed for democracy, they treated the royals with kid gloves. For decades they ignored Juan Carlos' extramarital affairs and the issues between JC and Sofia. They treated Elena, Cristina and Felipe with more deference than the British royals had in those years as well. However after the Noos scandal, the elephant hunting and more there has been a few more negative stories. JC's abdication came at the right time IMHO.

The Dutch, Belgian, and Scandinavian royals are often the topic of German tabloids. They can be harsh as well. The Dutch royals including the current King and Queen have sued and won on more than one occasion. Dare to  skirt around their very strict media code at your own risk.

[michelle0187]

^ appreciate you explaining it to me. I assumed that because of the international popularity of the brf , it would bring them more negatives than positive.

[TLLK]

You're very welcome @michelle0187  :)

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

I'd imagine the strict libel laws in the UK also contribute as well? Seems we always hear in docs and books how reporters knew stuff years ahead but couldnt write it, over legal concerns.

I dont follow the european royals much, do the paps follow them as much over there either in the past or mow like they did in the UK. @TLLK  ?

[TLLK]

@Duch_Luver_4ever -Yes they all have their paparrazzi and they do follow them especially in the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands and Spain. Belgium and Luxembourg seem to have less of a paparazzi issue IMO. The Dutch royals as a mentioned before have a strict media code which was put in place to protect the privacy of the royal children. If you violate it then your company will not be invited to the two annual  official press calls or to milestone moments. AFAIK the Dutch royals have won in court every time and the monetary  reward is donated to one of their charities.

Spanish language press has three royal ladies two  Queens and a Grand Duchess who are native Spanish speakers. So Maxima(Argentina) receives a great deal of attention in South America.

As I previously mentioned the Spanish language tabloid press can be as vicious as the English ones. :wacko: Letizia's sisters were the subject of many stories which didn't help her sister Erika's emotional issues. Erika committed suicide in the mid-2000's. Her surviving sister Telma is also in their sights much like Pippa and James Middleton are with the English tabloids.

Like most tabloids they're interested in royal children, teens and young adults. Norway's CP Mette Marit has a son from an earlier relationship who is now a handsome young man. He's been the subject of tabloid coverage in his youth.

They're also looking for any hint of marital problems, a budding romance for the single royals etc...

[LouisFerdinand]

The media wanted news about Princess Diana.     
Through the Lens: The Media Legacy of Princess Diana - Tina Brown - YouTube

[FanDianaFancy]

1A. Should monarchies engage with the media or shut them off?
1B. Should monarchies engage with the media or shut them off?
2.   Was the media Diana's ally or did they eventually destroy her?
3.   What was the role of the media in the Waleses marriage?
4.   Is the media entirely dishonest? Are we being manipulated and it is all a bunch of lies?

Good  post / Good questions.

1A-When  PD and PC married, the  media  was  getting more  lucrative as a business. There were media outlets  when  or soon after they  got married. Cable  24 hours  news/tv shows.  During their time,  the internet developed. Her popularity due to her way, manner  at  ease  with the public, way  with  the  Q/K, Heads of State, her look, her  youth, her fashions, just took her  off. Not her fault. Truly she  was at ease and made those meeting her at ease whether  they  were K/Q  to the paupers!

1B. The BRF  depends on the  mystery and magic and mystic  of the people  supporting this  centuries old  outdated institution. They BRF and TBTP have to give the media  some  bits  of  information about their private lives  since the taxpayers and govt. pays  for the  show.
The BRF  has to act  with some kind of decorum and sense of duty  ad common sense there  to  their people  for  the grandiose, wild lifestyle  of  privileges that are  priceless.
Yes, the BRF had and has to engage the media to some degree.

This goes for  all monarchies  of the modern world. How much depends on their country and  people.  If not, then the media  will engage themselves.

2. Diana  was the  money.  She  used the media , her fault, to her advantage  often (fashion, causes,  war with Charles)  and  the media  used her too ( fashion, causes,  war with Charles).  They   took some infamous pictures, yet unseen, unpublishable  because no one wants to publish  or buy them, of her dying in the  car.
The media was Diana   ally and it destroyed her too  and I mean before the accident. Diana  was and still is the money media  gift that keeps on giving.

3- The  media 's role in the  divorce  was major .  Morton scooped the book deal of a  lifetime.  Penny Junor and those types did and are  still  alining themselves with PC and Court  to  gain favor, be in favor.  Sounds all medieval  but the BRF and Court and  Media  has  not changed in that way  for centuries.

4-Some things are true and  some are not. If you are unbiased and look at  it, you can see what  is true and what  is not.  Truth depends on the sources and  reasons  why they print on line, in print, and  air on tv, in books, what they do.  Sometimes, some  sources will omit  the  other halfs of the story  for their  gain.

[LouisFerdinand]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed-knLA9Nio 
Tina Brown spoke about Diana's Media Legacy.