Timehost says, "Thanks for coming to our Time/CNN Impact Forum."
Timehost says, "Tonight, we're talking about the sudden death of
Princess Diana. We're going to be talking to Mary Dejevsky,
Washington bureau chief of the British newspaper, The Independent, and Priscilla Painton,
senior editor of Time Magazine."
Timehost says, "Mary Dejevsky is joining us now. Thank you for
being with us tonight."
Timehost says, "The tragedy of Diana's death is something that the
whole world is looking at in shock. But can Americans really feel what the British are
going through?"
M_dejevsky says, "I think the Americans feel just as strongly as
the British people do because Diana was appreciated just as much in the U.S. as she was in
Britain. And maybe the British don't appreciate that. I think the British don't understand
quite how global a figure she was."
Timehost says, "Let's take a question from one of the people in
our time room..."
Timehost presents question #10 from Bren35:
what is the likelihood that there will NOT be a state funeral for Princess Diana? Do you
envision Prince Charles and/or the Queen receiving any backlash from Diana's death (i.e., if
the marriage had been successful this wouldn't have happened?)
M_dejevsky says, "I think if the marriage had been successful, then
it's very probable that this would not have happened. She would have been thoroughly
protected by the security detail from the British crown."
M_dejevsky says, "Regarding the state funeral, this is apparently
the subject of big discussions between the British Government, the Royal Family, Diana's
family and the Church of England."
M_dejevsky says, "When she and Prince Charles divorced, she was
deprived of her full royal status. She lost her title "Her Royal Highness" and, by
losing that, she lost the automatic right to be considered a full member of the royal
family."
M_dejevsky says, "That makes the question of a state funeral a
very difficult constitutional problem. The word from the U.K. today is that the royal
family would prefer a low key funeral with maybe a full international memorial service
afterward. But the PM Tony Blair who is more of the
younger generation, and more in tune with how many people in Britain feel, may be arguing
for a full state funeral for Diana."
M_dejevsky says, "For me it's hard to see how a state funeral can
be avoided. Because this is not just a national tragedy,
from the messages of condolence from around the world, it is clear that State dignitaries,
heads of Churches, people like Mother Theresa, and charities like the Red Cross and Aids
foundations are united in grief for Diana."
M_dejevsky says, "I think it will be very hard for the British
Monarchy to resist the pressure for a State Funeral."
M_dejevsky says, "The only Question is if Diana's family has any
question about a private family."
Timehost says, "We're also joined now by Time senior editor,
Priscilla Painton."
P_painton says, "What are some of the differences between a low key
funeral and a full scale state funeral?"
M_dejevsky says, "A state funeral would involve invitations to
heads of state or their representatives. It would become a BIG international occasion,
probably one of the biggest Britain has seen in recent years. And it would be governed
by diplomatic protocol, not just friends and acquaintances would be invited, protocol would
have to be used."
Timehost presents the speakers with question #21 from Curious36:
why should they WANT to avoid a state funeral?
P_painton says, "good question."
Timehost says, "Mary, why dont you start?"
M_dejevsky says, "Because, in the terms of the British Royal
Family, Diana was a very problematic figure. By separating and then divorcing Prince
Charles, she had lost her full royal status. And without that status, she would not
automatically qualify for a full state funeral. To give her a state funeral for the Royal
Family, it means partly admitting that they were wrong to demote her from her title "Her
Royal Highness.""
P_painton says, "She was revolutionary in some ways. She threatened
them in important ways. On the one hand, she brought to the palace the
notion that love had to be part of a crown wedding. And, two, she proved that outsiders are more suited
to royal behavior than many of the royals are. Those are two threatening propositions to a family
that is under attack"
M_dejevsky says, "I think the Royal Family certainly felt
threatened by Diana. And that there are two arguments, one in favor
of a State Funeral, and one against. In favor of a State Funeral: now that Diana is
dead the Royal Family can afford to be magnanimous. And Charles has no competition for popular
appeal."
M_dejevsky says, "The argument against is: that by giving a State
Funeral, the Royal Family is either accepting or turning a blind eye to previous conduct
that they found unacceptable. That was indiscretion and adultery by a Royal
that became public, and that by a woman who was a minor aristocrat and not a member of the
Royal family but came in and showed them how to do their job."
Timehost presents the speakers with question #14 from Faale:
Who do you think is to blame for the Diana's death?
M_dejevsky says, "I think it was an extraordinary choice by Diana
and Dodi Al-Fayed that they could be in Paris and go to his villa west of Paris without
attracting the attention of the paparazzi, if they had wanted to go to dinner at the Ritz
they should have stayed there the night."
P_painton says, "Well at least in part some reckless driving"
M_dejevsky says, "I also think that it is too easy to blame the
paparazzi and absolve everyone else. -It's much more complicated than that."
P_painton says, "And the disturbing question is who are the
paparazzi really working for?"
Timehost says, "There are many people in our time room who do feel
the media played a role...and I'd like to take some of their questions now."
Timehost presents the speakers with question #13 from Rhiannon:
What do you think of the internet grass roots campaign to boycott Time/Warner's
Publication People Magazine because of its excessive use of Diana now only on the cover,
but in the issues?
P_painton says, "If you think about it hard, anyone who has
read a celebrity story, any consumers of this kind of journalism are in
some way complicit too."
Timehost presents the speakers with question #11 from Slybar:
Will the press, the independent , for example, modify its policy of paying for photos,
following the latest event?
M_dejevsky says, "I agree, because this consumption creates the
market for excessively high priced pictures and the
incentive to take the risks they were in the tunnel last night."
P_painton says, "Such a boycott would be hypocritical it seems to
me. Should we point the finger at the millions of
people who buy People Magazine every week?"
M_dejevsky says, "It's very easy for us to say, since we are not
involved in that kind of journalism that it is wrong for those pictures to command prices of
more that $1M. But that is a rate created by the market. If
the market wasn't there, if those pictures didn't sell magazines like People, or the
British tabs, those journalists wouldn't have been there."
P_painton says, "I don't mean to mean to sign off so quickly but
I've been up since midnight with this story, and now I have to catch some sleep.""
Timehost says, "okay, well thank you, Priscilla for joining us
tonight"
Timehost presents the speakers with question #23 from Sorrow:
The public itself is equally accountable for this tragedy because of it's insatiable and
sometimes ridiculous need to insinuate itself in the personal lives of celebrities - can
they now do the right thing and stop this fascination at its source?
M_dejevsky says, "I don't think they will be able to stop it. I think there will be a pause because of what
happened to Diana. But there is a fascination with celebrities, which
will NOT go away, just because of one tragic death."
Timehost says, "There's been a great deal of comment in the time
room about what changes might take place. Do you think there will be any changes in the way
the media does its business as a result of Diana's death?"
Timehost presents question #35 from Enovator:
To what extent mass media can be controlled to avoid "public murders"?
Timehost says, "as you can see, some people are even suggesting
controls on the media..."
M_dejevsky says, "I think in order for there to be permanent
changes, not just temporary changes in reaction to this disaster, there would have to be
laws made, and the interesting and disturbing fact in
French laws in the area of privacy, is that they are some of the strictest in the world.
Britain's laws are not nearly as strict as the French. It was the behavior of the paparazzi in France
and in Italy that was the real problem. They were much more persistent and much less
governed by law than in Britain, where there was more distance. So the conclusion
is that however strict the laws, this doesn't necessarily help."
M_dejevsky says, "There have been discussions in Britain in the
last 5 years about a strict law to protect the privacy of individuals Like the law in France,
but the new P.M. in Britain does not favor such a law. The British press strongly opposes such a law,
and they will say that Diana lost her life in France, pursued by French papparazzi, and not
in Britain."
Timehost says, "I think we've all seen the sense of frustration,
though that people are feeling, it among the people who've logged on and we're certainly
seeing it in our time room..."
Timehost presents question #38 from Jenhol:
Won't Diana's death be that much more tragic if nothing is done to prevent this from
happening to another? There must be a way to stop these parasitic paparazzi who act like
bounty hunters.
M_dejevsky says, "So long as the rewards are so big, I think it
will be very difficult to stop them, regardless of what laws are put in place. Apparently
there is already in Britain a big
discussion in progress about Diana's protection, and the risks she had to face."
M_dejevsky says, "And Diana was in a strange position, if she had
been a full member of the Royal Family, she would have had complete security protection.
When she divorced, it is said that she wanted to
live more like a private citizen, that means without round the clock security protection.
But there was a contradiction between her desire to be a private citizen and the fact that
she was already a public celebrity. She was caught between these two worlds."
Timehost presents question #44 from Liart:
Is Time Magazine or the Independent in the regular practice of buying photos directly from
paparazzi, or are they usually used only after they become official news items from wire
services and the like?
M_dejevsky says, "For the Independent, we are not in the position
of buying such photos for two reasons. The first, in principal, is that The
Independent is hostile to coverage of the Royal Family just because they are the Royal
Family. The Independent was founded 10 years ago and had
a policy of NOT covering Royal events, including the birth of royal children and certainly not
royal scandals."
M_dejevsky says, Except, and this was a big "except," where the
newspaper judged that royal actions had constitutional significance. The problems was that
very soon after the Independent was founded the Royal scandals became centered on the
marriage of Diana and Charles -- which was definitely a constitutional issue. So the Independent had to start covering
stories about the Royal Family, which it had NOT expected to do. The second reason why the Independent doesn't
buy Paparazzi pictures, is that it can't afford it."
Timehost says, "I also want to point out that Time also does not
buy paparazzi photographs....but we're heading in a direction that perhaps leads to our next
question..."
Timehost presents question #8 from Rhiannon:
The establishment media has been distancing themselves from this tragedy all day. How is
it that supposedly responsible journalists feel it is acceptable to report on tabloid
journalism, thereby repeating it, yet separate themselves from those who report it to begin
with?
M_dejevsky says, "I think its a relatively new development, at
least in Britain. Until 10 years ago, the serious newspapers did
not cover the same subjects as the tabloids. The serious newspapers would say that market
considerations dictated that they had to cover those stories as well. The competition
in the British press is not just in the tabs. Tabloids against Tabloids, it's amongst all
the newspapers every day. It is hard to imagine a parallel in the U.S.,
but it's as though the NY Times were competing for advertising and readers with the NY Daily
News or NY Post."
Timehost presents question #53 from Jenhol:
If the French authorities are able to determine that certain members are responsible for
her death, to what extent can they be punished?
M_dejevsky says, "They can be punished, under French law, probably
very severely. There are two specific offenses under French law
which they can be charged with. One to cause death with or by a car accident,
and the other, a very French offense, "failing to aid a person in distress." That law is usually used for people who do not
stop to help victims of accidents or accomplices to crimes who escape from the
scene."
M_dejevsky says, "But if it can be proved that paparazzi took
photos of the accident, before calling the emergency services, that would be considered a
very serious offense in France. French law also makes it possible to hold people
in detention, without charge, under circumstances that would be considered fairly brutal in
the U.S. or Britain."
Timehost says, "We've had a number of questions about how Diana's
death will affect Britain's monarchy both in the short and long term...."
Timehost presents question #45 from Jenhol:
Do you think that the British will accept Prince Charles as their King? Or will he be
passed over for Prince William?
M_dejevsky says, "In the short term, her death could divide
British opinion on the Monarchy very severely. Some people will have tremendous sympathy both
for Charles and the Royal Family. It's a paradox, but her death actually removes a
big obstacle to the popularity of Prince Charles and the Queen."
M_dejevsky says, "On the other side, there will be people
undoubtedly who will blame Prince Charles and the Royal Family for Diana's death. They will
say that he should have tried harder to make the marriage work, that his continuing
relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles, which is still going on, was to blame for the
breakdown of the marriage."
M_dejevsky says, "In the longer term I think it means two things.
It will make it more difficult for Charles to marry Camilla. There were signs that British
public opinion and government opinion was that Charles could marry Camilla. But after
Diana's death it makes it harder.
Ironically, Diana's death makes Charles marriage to Camilla more acceptable to the Church of
England."
M_dejevsky says," The other long term effect is that it will make
the Monarchy look very old fashioned, because so long as Diana was there was a
contrast between a new style and old style. Now the Monarchy has lost its only modern
representative."
Timehost says, "Okay, Mary, I know you've got to go...one last
question... A number of people in the room have asked about
the impact on Diana's two son's Princes William and Harry?"
M_dejevsky says, "I think its just a disaster, when you look at
everything that they've been through. That they were born into a marriage that barely
existed, and was very formal. That they lived through various tensions and
disagreements in the house. They lived through adulteries on the part of
both parents, then separations and the very public divorce."
M_dejevsky says, "And in the last 2 years admissions by both
parents of adultery. Of Charles admitting to his affair with Camilla
and Diana traveling the world meeting with various men, at least 4 different names mentioned
in connection with Diana in the year that she's been divorced. Now she's been killed suddenly in the company of
her latest man-friend. It is very hard to see how these two adolescents
can't have been very severely harmed in all of this."
M_dejevsky says, "Good night, and thank you very much."
Timehost says, "Thank you very much, Mary Dejevsky, Washington
Bureau Chief of the Independent, for being with us tonight. I'm sorry it had to be on such
a sad occasion."
