whitaker would definitely be a good source wouldn't he...and we all know how the press can manipulate a situation to get what they want. i guess i've just always wondered about this whole "diana being able to manipulate the media" thing.
That's a good question, Duchess. Quite honestly I think the charges of Diana's manipulating the media came when the media itself came under fire for some of its less than honest portrayal of the Diana-Charles marriage and the response was that they had been manipulated by Diana. Whitaker in particular gave an interview before Diana died and claimed that she was very saavy with the media from the beginning and he said he always suspected her of manipulating them. I was quite surprised to hear him say this while she was still alive. But still to me, Whitaker's protests sound like the pot calling the kettle black.
I think all public figures need to manipulate their press coverage to a certain extent; that is why they are public figures. The Queen, Prince of Wales and the whole Royal Family have to manage their image in the press because the image of the monarchy is their whole reason for being. That's why they hire hire press agents and press secretaries.
Diana did meet individually with press power brokers and try to convince them to cover her more favorably. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't so I think you're right, she wasn't always succesful. But I don't think that meeting with them was excessive manipulation; I imagine other celebrities do it too.
More troubling (to me) examples of her press manipulation were her long-standing relationships with Whitaker, Morton, and Kay ahd her tendency to feed them erroneous information which they published without independently verifying. James Whitaker covered the Daily Mirror, Andrew Morton covered the more upscale Sunday Times, and Richard Kay covered the midmarket Daily Mail so between the three of them they had all of Britain covered. Diana would call Kay up so many times to feed him an article that she wanted him to print that his rival reporters started getting suspicious and started stalking Kay. Their photographers shot pictures of Richard Kay and Diana talking alone the day before Richard Kay published a major revelation and Kay had to scrap his plans to quote a 'friend' of Diana and had to quote Diana herself.
Diana and Kay caught tremendous heat when Richard Kay published a story about a heroic Diana saving a tramp from drowning in a gutter that came when general press coverage about Diana was negative. It appears that Diana had called him up with the story, Kay published it without checking to verify it and his rival papers verified it and found that it wasn't true. Despite this debacle, Kay had Diana's trust so much that he became her speechwriter.
Even with these little manipulations and yes the picture at the Taj Mahal too, I think Diana would have escaped the 'press manipulator' label if she had not used her power to make Charles and the Royal Family look bad in her two major public relations coups - the Morton book and the Panorama interview.
Morton swore up and down that he did not try to lead Diana on with the book but that it originally was her idea and she sought him out. I don't know whether I believe that he never led her on but I do believe his word when he says that she reached out to him. One theme throughout the book from talks with Diana's friends and people she came in contact with was that Diana was uncomfortable when the other person took the initiative; she preferred being the one to reach out to others rather than have others reach out to her. It seemed a common theme in her romantic relationships, friendships, and dealings with the press.
Ironically I think that the Panorama interview was a good example of a media figure manipulating Diana. Martin Bashir looked incredibly discreet and well-bred during the interview, but according to Smith's book, he fed Diana lies about how members of her family were spying on her and produced bogus documents to show that a certain press agency had paid the security at Althorp for exclusive pictures and stories of Diana in order to get her to sit down for an interview with him. He also implicated some of Diana's friends in the plot (some thought because the friends would counsel her against an interview with Bashir) The implication was that Bashir manipulated Diana to keep the project a secret from everybody so that he could get the interview.
For me the most troubling aspects of these two events was Diana's reaction after the fallout. The Morton book put her brother-in-law, Robert Fellowes, in an untenable position as the private secretary of the Queen. In his job he had to ask her if she cooperated with the book and when she said no, he defended her and her non-involvement to the press and was made to look ineffectual and foolish when Diana publicly visited her friend Carolyn Bartholomew who had cooperated with the book. Fellowes was so mortified he offered his resignation to the Queen because he said he had failed in his duty. The Queen luckily refused to accept his resignation. I suppose it is good of Diana to stick by her friends but when sticking by her friends causes her family who weren't even involved in the mess with Charles and Camilla to look foolish, this act of sticking by her friends does not seem good-natured at all. Smith also says the Royal Family offered her several outs and several methods to say she didn't cooperate with the book and the implication was that all would be forgiven but she refused each overture by them.
More troubling was her reaction after the Panorama fallout. In fact, after learning about the background of the Panorama interview, it appears she wanted Charles to look bad so much that she was willing to sacrifice making herself look good. According to Smith, Diana spoke with the editor of the Sun about the press coverage following the interview. The editor told her point blank that she could not expect favorable coverage from the Sun unless she made it clear that she was not advocating that Charles be bypassed as King in the succession to the throne. He told her as long as she confirmed she supported Charles' succession to the throne, the Sun would report favorably for her on the interview. However, Diana refused to state her support for Charles ascending the throne. What is remarkable is that despite the need for positive coverage, Diana refused to backtrack on the implication that she thought Charles was not fit for the throne.
The implication of the interview seemed obvious. Polls right after the interview showed only a minor upsurge in Diana's popularity with the general public but they showed a major downturn in people's opinions of Charles. Nothing, not the Morton book, not the Dimbeldy book or interview where Charles admitted the affair, not even the Camillagate tapes affected Charles' reputation with the public as much as Diana's Panorama interview.
In answer to your question whether she consistently and successfully manipuated the media, I think not. But in the Panorama interview in particular, I think she was very successful in manipulating public opinion to Charles' detriment and it appears from her reactions after the interview that she was very pleased with the results. She was at least pleased enough with Bashir to hire him as her speechwriter replacing Richard Kay.
Without the Morton book and the Panorama interview, I think her legacy might be different.