The Late Princess Diana news thread 5: April - June 2007

[sassie]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Isn't that what everyone who posts in these threads does?

Not really, because forums invite discussion, and misinformation can be corrected. A book doesn't allow that. It presents a slanted point of view that may not be accurate. Worse, the author may know it isn't accurate, but chooses to ignore that in exchange for money. Books have a mercenary element that forums like these do not.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by sassie

Books have a mercenary element that forums like these do not.

The problem for those who don't know the inside story is that in the absence of public record the only information available comes from books. What makes the discussions interesting is trying to establish what may be true and what may not be.
The downside is that most of our interpretation and what we accept as true or false is based on pre-existing attitudes.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by sassie

Not really, because forums invite discussion, and misinformation can be corrected. A book doesn't allow that. It presents a slanted point of view that may not be accurate. Worse, the author may know it isn't accurate, but chooses to ignore that in exchange for money. Books have a mercenary element that forums like these do not.

A book certainly does allow for discussion. That why book reviews and weekly book discussion clubs are so popular. Just look at the discussion that the Da Vinci Code engendered in forums and in people's living rooms all over the world. I would even hazard to say that an editor has more resources at his or her disposal to vouchsafe the accuracy of the book than the moderators of a forum do.

There are going to be people with vicious and hidden agendas everywhere, they can be found posting to forums under fanciful usernames as well as authoring books as well as other places. On an internet forum, it is harder to see someone's hidden agenda because forums provide anonymity. The Royal Forum is quite a pleasant community but I have seen forums where this is not the case - where even the standards of good grammar and legibility have been breached and what has been posted for pages and pages on end have been little more than hate-driven vitriol.

Overall there is no policeman on the World Wide Web so when it comes to information the watchword is definintely 'caveat empteor' You are right that information on forums can be questioned - its the premise behind Wikipedia but forums are only as good as the willingness of members to question and when a forum gets a strong group that is determined to spread nastiness and vitriol, a regular member might as well be spitting in the wind as confront it. A book's damage ends at the last page but vitriol can be added to a forum thread as long as its open so if a vitriolic group really can have no limits to how much they can spew.

Most people have better things to do in their free time that try to fight such a determined group so they just go away and the forums attract more and more vitriolic members and less and less reasonable members. It can be a vicious cycle that has ruined many a internet community.

As far as Diana is concerned, I think she turned from a young shy girl to a royal princess to a media cash cow a long time ago. People want to see pictures of her and people want to see more details about her and that appetite hasn't stopped. Its hard though to fulfill the insatiable appetite when the woman has been dead for ten years. All anybody can do is to recycle old stories and pictures and search even harder for new never before published inside information. This last bit drives the emerging tell all book market as more and more people more peripheral to Diana are welcomed to write their story.

There is not nor has ever been a rigorous standard of credibility or fairness applied to news about Diana. The reason for that I believe is that she stopped being a woman and started being a fairytale princess, a legend, an icon, a symbol a long time ago. We don't have the same rigorous test for accuracy for a fairytale as we do for a documentary. The mundane facts of a person's existence can shatter that fairytale. It matters little that these latest tell all books are critical to Diana - they just give Diana another part in the fairytale - the wicked witch whereas before she was the fairy godmother. People are used to reading about wicked witches and trapped damsels in distress who need a knight in shining armour when they read about Diana. I imagine the latest books don't disappoint some though they might disappoint others in what part they assign to Diana in the fairytale.

[sassie]

Originally Posted by ysbel

A book certainly does allow for discussion. That why book reviews and weekly book discussion clubs are so popular.

No, that isn't what I meant. Yes, a book invites discussion after publication...but the very format of the book itself does not allow dicussion. You cannot insert your own point of view or the correction of a fact into a book to balance the reader's perspective. In addition, an author who may choose to make a claim that is not altogether accurate or true is not required to defend that claim. They can put it out there, but not necessarily participate in the discussions that ensue. It's certainly better, for their own credibility if nothing else, for them to participate, but that doesn't mean they will. And if an inaccurate claim from a book is repeatedly quoted on a forum like this, or in an article, or through the media, then it can take on the solidity of fact. That is what I meant.

For an example, when Charles and Diana had their engagement interview, he said, "Whatever 'in love' means." Over the years, he was misquoted as saying "Whatever 'love' means." Different people have different connotations about the term "in love", which was likely the point Charles was making. But, the misquote was so widely repeated, and so widely assumed to mean that he didn't love Diana at all, that it is now accepted as fact. It isn't what he said, it likely isn't what he meant, but the wider public remains convinced otherwise.

This is the conundrum of the Charles and Diana story. There is his version, and her version, but the truth, in reality, lies somewhere in the middle. Books like this do not encourage the reading public to accept that reality. "It is printed, therefore it must be true."

[Next Star]

The best thing to do is not listen to what people say about the late Diana,Princess of Wales and the books they write about her because they did not know her personally or professionally either. We need to remember her of the good things she had done while she was here on earth with all of us.The untouchable and one of the best known royals ever to live she is without a doubt a legend in my book. RIP Diana, Princess of Wales you were truly the people's princess and still is to this very day.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by sassie

... You cannot insert your own point of view or the correction of a fact into a book to balance the reader's perspective. In addition, an author who may choose to make a claim that is not altogether accurate or true is not required to defend that claim..... ....And if an inaccurate claim from a book is repeatedly quoted on a forum like this, or in an article, or through the media, then it can take on the solidity of fact. That is what I meant.

Some good points but the only people who do know the facts, do not write about them, so everything people think and make judgements on may not be true. Even friends 'repeat' the telling from their own perspective and unless we were there, at the actual event, all we can do is correct what we perceive to be inaccurate from our point of view.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by sassie

No, that isn't what I meant. Yes, a book invites discussion after publication...but the very format of the book itself does not allow dicussion. You cannot insert your own point of view or the correction of a fact into a book to balance the reader's perspective. In addition, an author who may choose to make a claim that is not altogether accurate or true is not required to defend that claim. They can put it out there, but not necessarily participate in the discussions that ensue. It's certainly better, for their own credibility if nothing else, for them to participate, but that doesn't mean they will. And if an inaccurate claim from a book is repeatedly quoted on a forum like this, or in an article, or through the media, then it can take on the solidity of fact. That is what I meant.."

Thanks for explaining sassie. I think the example you used about Charles' whatever love means was actually first reported in the tabloids not necessarily in a book.

The ability to join in and refute a statement can work for both good and evil in my opinion. If the original statement was malicious and untruthful then it can be helpful to be able to jump in and correct it but if the original statement was truthful it is also possible for a person with an agenda to attack it unfairly with ad hominen attacks and divert attention from what was actually said to confuse people even more.

I think if people want to take a slam at Charles because of Diana or if they want to take a slam at Diana because of Charles, or because it makes them more money, there's really nothing to stop them, and as long there are others like them, they will always have an audience.

Even William's and Kate's breakup was used as an occasional to spread rumours about the Royal Family and blame Charles over his bad parenting skill when it looks like he had nothing to do with the breakup. And all of these rumours which will stick in the public's consciousness without a single book being published yet (although we know a book has got to come out of this)

Already people are starting to quote with authority that Kate was snubbed because her mother asked to go to the toilet.

People believe what they want to believe and they repeat what they want to keep hearing. I don't think the medium is going to change that.

[HRH Kimetha]

Originally Posted by sassie

For an example, when Charles and Diana had their engagement interview, he said, "Whatever 'in love' means." Over the years, he was misquoted as saying "Whatever 'love' means." Different people have different connotations about the term "in love", which was likely the point Charles was making. But, the misquote was so widely repeated, and so widely assumed to mean that he didn't love Diana at all, that it is now accepted as fact. It isn't what he said, it likely isn't what he meant, but the wider public remains convinced otherwise.

Even I have thought he said "whatever love means" through these years and it isn't easy to shake, as I also watched the interview and heard for myself "whatever in love means" know differently. The media does aim to not only give correct information, but also tends to desiminate incorrect information. I spent some time in a university/local newspaper newsroom AND a television station run by a university journalism department. In my journalism classes during the day, we were told to make sure all was accurate and that news influences your readers.

When I went to work at night at the station to lay down video for the newscasts, I was taught to seek out the right spots of the video that would be most interest to the viewer and such a "story" was created outside the "real" story that was downloaded from the parent corporate station, such as NBC. Not only did we cover the story a second time for the local station, but also took from the story an underlining story. So, that is one factor in how sometimes stories are misconstrued as true because of the 'slant' that some news reporters do with a story.

One can also look at some of the pictures that are used to 'slant' a story. A picture can be taken of two celebrities working on a movie and if one doesn't really follow the celebrities and know of the movie, a rumour of an affair with a picture offset of the 'two celebrities" together can get people believing that it's a real affair. Anyway, that's my take on the subject without blowing too much steam and saying too much, as I like to keep my comments short and to the point.

[gfg02]

The Summer of Diana
Ten Years After Her Death, A Wave of Beach Books Hits; Will Brown's 'Land Big'?

The Summer of Diana - WSJ.com

[sirhon11234]

It truly will be The Summer of Diana. I'am thinking about buying one of those new Diana books that will hit the shelves in the summer.

[Skydragon]

Yes, they are all looking to make a bit more money out of the cash cow. In the UK, there are collectors plates on offer, dolls, musical figurines, DVD's, you name it, you can find it with a Diana theme.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by HRH Kimetha

Anyway, that's my take on the subject without blowing too much steam and saying too much, as I like to keep my comments short and to the point.

Are you saying that some of us blow too much steam and say too much, HRH Kimetha?

I admit to being one of the more verbose persons on the board but I enjoy the opportunity to share my thoughts with like-minded people. You don't often find people that have the patience to listen to two words about royalty.

I will endeavor to make my reply short and to the point, but I give no guarantees.

I think you have a point with the slant of the stories. I think with Charles and Diana's interview, it was interesting to see how the slant changed.

When it was first presented, the slant was of a young, slightly awkward couple in love. Charles looked endearingly goofy and Diana looked calmly demure.

There were some more interesting parts of the conversation. Charles mentioned that he was surprised that he was able to find a woman to take him on and that he asked her to marry him right before his trip to Australia so that she could have time to think it over. But she said, that there was never any doubt in her heart and she said yes immediately which caught him by surprise and they had to start preparations a little sooner than they had planned.

These statements I thought were more significant than the whatever love means comment but you hardly hear the whole interview repeated. So news editors take whatever part that will prove their point better.

[HRH Kimetha]

Is Earl Spencer cashing in on his own guilt again?

by GEOFFREY LEVY - More by this author » Last updated at 00:06am on 28th April 2007
Comments
This is the time of year when you hear the call, as regular and persistent as the cuckoo.


It is the sound of Earl Spencer, attracting visitors to Althorp House where his sister, Diana, lies, her grave concealed in the centre of a lake across which visitors can peer for £12.50 a head. Hurry folks! Book your tickets for what is billed as "Diana: A Celebration". The house and Diana museum are open from July 2 to September 2. Lord Spencer, 42, is good at putting Althorp in the news.

Is Earl Spencer cashing in on his own guilt again? | the Daily Mail

[sirhon11234]

Wow that man has aged so much in 10 years.

[HRH Kimetha]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Are you saying that some of us blow too much steam and say too much, HRH Kimetha?

Not at all, Ysbel. In fact, if any one here ever met me or ever engaged in a short chat with me, I would be remembered as someone who didn't give anyone else a chance to talk, as I would go on laboriously refraining only when I notice that one of listening audience was now raising their hand to speak.

I admit to being one of the more verbose persons on the board but I enjoy the opportunity to share my thoughts with like-minded people. You don't often find people that have the patience to listen to two words about royalty.

And, I love to read those wonderful dissertations on the various issues and/or subjects that many of us on this board are so excited to read.

There were some more interesting parts of the conversation. Charles mentioned that he was surprised that he was able to find a woman to take him on and that he asked her to marry him right before his trip to Australia so that she could have time to think it over. But she said, that there was never any doubt in her heart and she said yes immediately which caught him by surprise and they had to start preparations a little sooner than they had planned.

These statements I thought were more significant than the whatever love means comment but you hardly hear the whole interview repeated. So news editors take whatever part that will prove their point better.

They were more significant because it indicated that Diana had obviously thought about the Prince of marriage material and had probably gone over it with her family and friends countless times. And Charles, if true, didn't seem to have a clue of Diana's, shall I say, "infatuation" with him.

[sirhon11234]

Princess Diana Returns, in a Russian Ballet
ABC News: Princess Diana Dances Again