Sarah's Interviews and Television Appearances

[Renata4711]

I ask myself: How much more do we, the TRF audience, have to put up with from Sarah ??

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Renata4711

I ask myself: How much more do we, the TRF audience, have to put up with from Sarah ??

Actually we don't have to put up with anything from Sarah as we could very easily skip by any thread that pertains to her. I think we stay tuned because sheesh, she can get so interesting at times. Kind of like another redhead that was always getting herself in some sort of "fix" and had 'splainin' to do.

[Kataryn]

I wonder where she got this Australian publicist?Ok, in the US probably Oprah's team arranged the TV appearances and interviews and thanks to Oprah's influence, they were really soft on her. Maybe Australia is next for "Finding Sarah"? Or she felt that this country/continent is worth a try, as she was well received down under as a young Royal. But I doubt Oprah has influence in Australia, so now come the real questions.

Or maybe she was set up again by her "publicist"? I mean - he did create a big story,,, And the "F..." word is really damaging for his "client" Sarah, so I'm not sure in whose interest he works.

[shari-aree]

Originally Posted by sndral

Apparently 'anything' for publicity does not include appearing in Big Brother
Sarah Ferguson denies signing up for Celebrity Big Brother 2011 | Unreality TV

Was the 60 minutes interview shot in Australia? If so I wonder why she went there. I haven't watched 60 minutes for years, but it used to be a pretty hard hitting, well researched program w/ expose style journalism. If it's still like that then whomever advised her to go on the show did her no favors, she didn't fare well in the short 10 questions Time interview and that was pretty soft, IMO, the reporter/editor backed down pretty fast, somebody should have known 60 min.s wouldn't back down so easily.
Interesting that her excuse for her behavior in the 60 minutes interview is "I was entrapped" wasn't that one of the excuses for the cash for access deal? Her team needs to get together and come up with some new excuses, the ones she's been using lately are getting a bit worn out.

Michael Usher -from Australian 60 minutes - travelled to interview Sarah.

The questions were pre-approved, they were discussed in advance.

However, Michael apparently asked her to watch the 'News of the Word - -entrapment interview', which obviously upset her.
IMO it is to be expected that she would one day be shown the footage.

Who knows? maybe they should have had it pre-approved, but also maybe she shouldn't be doing interviews for awhile.

*For her own health, I hope she takes time out to look after herself*
xoxos

[shari-aree]

Originally Posted by Kataryn

I wonder where she got this Australian publicist?Ok, in the US probably Oprah's team arranged the TV appearances and interviews and thanks to Oprah's influence, they were really soft on her. Maybe Australia is next for "Finding Sarah"? Or she felt that this country/continent is worth a try, as she was well received down under as a young Royal. But I doubt Oprah has influence in Australia, so now come the real questions.

Or maybe she was set up again by her "publicist"? I mean - he did create a big story,,, And the "F..." word is really damaging for his "client" Sarah, so I'm not sure in whose interest he works.

Sarah has always been well received here (Australia) - she has a Sister, a nephew & 2 neices here.
But like the rest of the world, some of us are scratching our heads
No Oprah doesn't influence us - but she is like by many.

[NotAPretender]

Originally Posted by Osipi

I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps Sarah believes that when she does an interview, that she should be deferred to and that in no way should they overstep the boundaries that would put her into a bad light. Perhaps she doesn't realize that the programs and the interviewers are not seeing Sarah as royalty (or even ex-royalty) or even the mother of princesses, but see a woman that's created a few waves by her own actions and are asking questions relating to this?

Osipi - I do believe you have struck on something there.

The interviewers aren't seeing her as anything beyond a woman who attempted to trade her ex husband for money, in a sting operation. The fact that she is ex-royalty doesn't enter into it. I think we are looking at an age gap; anyone age 35 or under never really knew her as Royalty and have only seen her as the scandal plagued person who continually trades herself down in her life choices. Whereas she still sees herself (I believe) as semi-Royal by virtue of continued contact with her daughters and Andrew.

I also believe she still sees herself as some winsome young thing, hence her imitation of Catherine Cambridge's eyeliner. This round of interviewers now are far less deferential; they've seen this tape and they see a drunk (her assertion) woman rubbing her eyes in glee and bragging about her access - and looking every year of her age. They don't see a person to whom to defer based on former (long-gone) status or personal presence.

I said in the other thread that I am certain she is contractually obligated to continue these appearances and interviews. And any interviewer worth their salt and who is next up on her interview schedule is now keen to get the next version of Sarah Stalking Off In A Snit footage; who wouldn't, given the international airplay that this is getting.

But yes, Osipi: I think that Sarah thinks she was/is/remains one thing and above others, whereas the reality is far different.

[Meadow]

If things were pre approved then what was the problem looking at the video? She already knew he was going to ask about it. I must admit Sarah comes across as arrogant and rude and as we all know it isn't the first time. To demand things get deleted like she should be obeyed. I really think she needs to be reminded she is no longer a Duchess just a sort of celebrity known for who she was once married too. It also drives me crazy that she and others continue to call her The Duchess even on her own website it is The Duchess this and The Duchess that. The Queen needs to do something because even though she is no longer a member of the RF there are some who look at interviews like this and still link her to the family. I don't know why she even did the interview I haven't heard anything about her show being bought over here unless it is to promote her book? I guess Oprah didn't help Sarah Find herself clearly she hasn't learnt anything. If she admitted it and said she was truly sorry and answer questions honestly people would move on. But it is clear she isn't telling the truth and the press will continue to help her on her way down. Not that she can get much lower although she isn't doing Big Brother I wonder if she got told that would be too far or worked it out herself. It looks like she is in Royal Lodge again so she hasn't moved out. Makes you wonder what she learnt from Dr Phil and why with all the money she has made recently she hasn't gotten her own place! Someone should ask her that.

[Renata4711]

As to Big Brother, I think Sarah wouldn't last beyond the first show.

Nobody there would act deferentially towards her, and it could ruin what's left of her reputation of media personality.

[sliver_bic]

Originally Posted by Renata4711

As to Big Brother, I think Sarah wouldn't last beyond the first show.

Nobody there would act deferentially towards her, and it could ruin what's left of her reputation of media personality.

Those shows are at least partially rigged. Wouldn't surprise me if they kept her around just for the ratings.

Originally Posted by Osipi

Kind of like another redhead that was always getting herself in some sort of "fix" and had 'splainin' to do.

BLASPHEMY!!! You dare compare Sarah to Lucy? Hang your head in shame, Osipi.

[Renata4711]

But would she agree to this?
I realise her reputation is already shot, but Big Brother may well be a step too far ??

Even so, I read the Wikipedia page on Sarah D.o.Y. for the first time, and I was pleasantly surprised about how much she has achieved over the years.

[Tyger]

Originally Posted by Kataryn

Ok, in the US probably Oprah's team arranged the TV appearances and interviews and thanks to Oprah's influence, they were really soft on her.

What? Where do you get this 'fact'? Whether or not 'Oprah's team' arranges interviews to promote 'Finding Sarah' - loooonnnnggggg since over - only happened prior to the show's airing, certainly not since - there is no 'thanks to Oprah's influence'. No one - not even Oprah (being the journalist she is) - would be 'soft' on Sarah. Oprah does not wield - nor attempt to wield - that kind of 'influence'.

[Aliza]

Originally Posted by Tyger

Actually, she is demonstrating at these moments that she has the inner where-withal to be an interviewer, to be in media. I know that pinches some folks - but its true. She's a character - developing a public persona with a backbone - she could do it - if she gets real, if she gets honest. I wonder...

IMHO, I don't think being arrogant and refusing to admit a fact that is available for all to see (the NOTW video and its accompanying betrayal) demonstrate "backbone". I see a sense of entitlement and a belief in Sarah that she is entitled to control the media on her own terms, regardless of circumstances.

As for being an interviewer, don't most people want honesty from the one asking the questions, too? She doesn't seem to want to face core issues with honesty (or without blaming someone around her or without trotting out the entrapment excuse). If she is seen as a dishonest character, I don't see how she could develop a successful persona as a hard-hitting interviewer or even an "Oprah". Oprah, who is a much softer sell than 60 Minutes, still has an impeccable reputation for honesty, both about herself and those she interviews. I remember how she called out the author who wrote a best-selling "memoir" that was all based on lies. Sarah now has published two memoirs which contradict each other on many points; does she even know which is true?

Maybe I'm too harsh, but I honestly believe that unless she demonstrates a capacity to be a humble, honest and responsible human being - the media will continue to toss her around like a broken and flawed toy. Sarah's persistence at playing with fire in her relations with the media (and her attempts to use the same) make her candy to any journalist out for a minor headline and a laugh.

If she could control her desire to interact with the media in any manner for a long period of time, her very reticence would bring back some respect. The media love to chase people for headlines, but despise with a vengeance those who chase them for publicity. IMHO, that's the fatal flaw to her relations with the press et al; as long as she shows a need for media attention, the media will treat her with contempt and scorn. Of course, that's not quite fair, but at fifty-one, Sarah has certainly had many chances to see that the media have never played fairly with anyone, not to mention the basic fact that life itself isn't always quite fair.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by sliver_bic

BLASPHEMY!!! You dare compare Sarah to Lucy? Hang your head in shame, Osipi.

Oh my! Me bad! One should never ever imply that another could ever hold a candle up to the Queen of Comedy and I have been sorely remiss. My apologies.

Let me rephrase that statement to say: We all do tune in to see what Sarah does next perhaps as we do Charlie Sheen and his antics just because they're so um... interesting.

There. Hope that is better!

[kakieanne]

IMO, these interviews are even more damaging to her reputation that the cash for access video. The one thing that Sarah always had going for her was her extremely likeable bouncy personality. Now she is coming across as demanding, arrogant, untruthful and having a sense of entitlement.

Sadly, the comment that is heard most often now is "I used to like Sarah".

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Tyger

What? Where do you get this 'fact'? Whether or not 'Oprah's team' arranges interviews to promote 'Finding Sarah' - loooonnnnggggg since over - only happened prior to the show's airing, certainly not since - there is no 'thanks to Oprah's influence'. No one - not even Oprah (being the journalist she is) - would be 'soft' on Sarah. Oprah does not wield - nor attempt to wield - that kind of 'influence'.

No, probably not, but it was surely clear to all interviewers that for Oprah's new network this docu-series was important and at the moment I don't think many would stand up against Oprah in taking this series overly critically but rather as a service to an admired and still very sucessful collegue. You know, interviewing and asking the "wrong" questions is a very open thing of going against someone and thus far, nobody wants to do that, as Oprah still is influentially, her channel might still be a success and you never know if you don't need her or her channel one day...
And it's not sooooo important to be unkind to Sarah for an American journalist, she is after all not an ex-member who shames one of the US-Royal family. aUstralians might see that in a very different light, as will British journalists do.

[NGalitzine]

Guess she still hasn't found Sarah, and likely never will as long as she keeps running way from herself.

[camelot23ca]

Originally Posted by Osipi

I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps Sarah believes that when she does an interview, that she should be deferred to and that in no way should they overstep the boundaries that would put her into a bad light. Perhaps she doesn't realize that the programs and the interviewers are not seeing Sarah as royalty (or even ex-royalty) or even the mother of princesses, but see a woman that's created a few waves by her own actions and are asking questions relating to this?

Yes, I think Sarah still sees herself as royal, or at least royal-ish and that's part of the problem. I remember a reporter talking about the guidelines the press had been given in advance of the Cambridges' tour of Canada - what they were and were not allowed to ask, when they were and were not allowed to approach and speak to the couple, the types of questions W and K would and would not answer, etc. It was, for the most part, accepted etiquette by the press in dealing with royalty, and IMO part of the reason it works is because the royals hold up their end of the bargain - they give the occasional comment or even more rare interview but they always maintain a bit of distance and they don't put their personal problems up for sale to the highest media bidder.

Sarah could have been treated the way she sees herself - as an unofficial member of the royal family - if she had played by the rules the media and the family itself has regarding how royalty acts.

[ZaJa]

Why would she be upset with the NOTW question since it's pretty much the reason she's getting all this attention? It put her name back in the headlines. Got her interviewed by Oprah. Which in turn got her a television show and more attention. I'd feel for her if it were something she wants to put behind her. But it seems like it's just part of her public persona.

[sliver_bic]

She's upset because, at least in her mind, she's gotten past it and as such everyone else should. "What's in the past is the past. At least if it puts me in a negative light."

[Diarist]

Sarah Ferguson storms out of Australian TV interview, claiming she was ambushed | Mail Online

QUOTE Sarah Ferguson storms out of TV interview claiming she was ambushed UNQUOTE

Well, my immediate thought is 'what a pity that she did not immeidately storm out of the 'Fake Sheikh' interview claiming she had been ambushed!!

Jokes apart, what Sarah seems NOT to have grasped is the difference between 'A TV Programme' and 'A Commercial'.

The difference is that with a TV programme, the editorial team is in control and the purpose of a programme is to benefit the audience. A commercial is something that is paid for by the advertiser to promote its product.

Part of the problem is that over the years this very important distinction has become blurred so that 'chat shows' etc have become little more than commercial for the so-called [celebrity] 'guests' who appear on the show basically to plug their new film [movie], book, product etc. And the trouble is that the tv producers go along with this [probably in the USA this is because a lot of programming has to be sufficiently 'on-message' because all programmes are basically funded by advertising and sponsorship etc]. Here in the UK, even our publically funded TV Channels [The BBC Channels] have started to go down the same route, producing chat shows where the guests turn up and sit and shamelessly plug their product. Indeed several people are now complaining about this, because the guests are in effect doing no more than giving a commercial for their product, with the BBC also paying them a hefty fee for their appearance. As a viewer, I find this annoying; the guest is probably interesting in a number of ways but because the programme editorial team are so supine, they are prepared to agree with any demands made by the guest's 'handlers' about what will or will not be discussed and woe betide the interviewer who tries to probe more thoroughly [shades of Sarah's Time interview come to mind]

IMHO, if Sarah chooses to appear on tv, then she just has to take the rough with the smooth.

As a side issue, these interviews do very much to remind me how incredibly lucky Sarah was to marry Andrew in the first place. Her conduct and her behaviour, as exposed in tv programmes and in interviews, has served to remind us that she really did 'hit the jackpot' when Andrew proposed to her, as in reality she had SO VERY LITTLE to offer on her own account:

It's a horrible thing to say, but aristocrats [and I will include Royalty by implication] tend to marry for love, but, as Nancy Mitford so accurately put it, they tend to 'love' where money and beauty is. Eased into expensive couture under the watchful eye of someone like Lindka Chierach, and with her face very carefully painted, Sarah Ferguson looked beautiful. But before she 'caught her prince', there was very little of Sarah that would have ensured her success in the marriage stakes, and it is certainly being made clear by her current media appearances that she has even less to offer now, as she has not even got youth on her side........and she certainly seems rather charmless.....

For a start, it is a horrible thing to say, but with aristocratic men, so often personal qualities don't count as much as beauty does - remember Earl Spencer during his Funeral Oration praising his sister for her beauty - yet beauty is NOT an attribute, it's a gift. Carefully photographed and lit in a tv studio under the sympathetic direction of Oprah, or airbrushed on the book jacket of 'Finding Sarah', Sarah looks a beguiling, unlined Titian Goddess. Caught in a true light, she looks unattractive and lined. At nearly 52, she is not going to attract a wealthy man on her looks........

Looks should not matter in an ideal world, only sweetness of character etc [although I am not sure that I would even attribute that much to poor old Sarah at the moment...] but unfortunately in this world how you look is very important.

I have mentioned elsewhere several times in other posts I have made that I actually met Sarah shortly before Diana's marriage, and I had seen her around at Polo numerous times before that. She was badly dressed [not a crime of course] and was very loud - if not actually shouting [which she almost always was] everything about her, from her whoomph whoomph walk to her loud, braying voice, suggested noise.

She was known as 'Fergie' or, mostly, 'Fat Fergie', [to distinguish her from her polo-playing Father, who was also known as ' Fergie' to many], or, even worse as 'The Ginger Lump', because her rather uncontrolled hair was carrot-coloured and she was covered in freckles which all contributed to an orange glow. Horrid to judge a person on her looks, but as I have said, that is unfortunately what an awful lot of people do. The other problem was that Sarah's very ordinary looks stood out because her mother, Susan Barrantes, was an acknowledged beauty [even though the Argentinian sun was beginning to damage her looks].

Sarah also had no wealth of her own [not that she needed it, but Diana was the beneficiary of a trust fund, which had also funded the purchase of her flat at Coleherne Court.] Even worse for Sarah, moral standards were a little more strict 25 or 30 years ago, certainly in public. With two public lovers behind her [Kim Smith-Bingham and Paddy McNally] Sarah was not much of a catch in the eyes of the eligible men [or more importantly, their mothers, many of whom were also a bit dubious about the daugher of a well-known Bolter.] Sarah's sudden accession to the status of Royal Bride and wife to the then admired [war hero] Prince Andrew, rocketted Sarah to the very top of Society. As a result of this 'lucky catch'. Sarah seems to have developed a sense of entitlement over the years, and this is now coming through in practically every tv appearance or interview that she now does.....

A couple of other points: how does Sarah count herself as 'homeless' when she can be filmed at her family's farmhouse at Dummer [regardless of the fact that she owns at least a share in her mother's ranch in Argentina, and may indeed even own the ranch outright]. And I was amused to read in one of the articles about how TWO Range Rovers were necessary when picking up Sarah Ferguson: one for her AND ANOTHER ONE FOR HER LOUIS VUITTON LUGGAGE. Very nice for those of her staff who received only a fraction of what they would have received under an Individual Voluntary Agreement [as such things are known in England] drawn up to help a person avoid Bankruptcy

It is a funny old world.

Just my thoughts and not meant to offend,

Alex