slutet på sagan prinsessan dianas död i press, radio och tv

family and their actions. Most of this criticism
had been conveyed in the British
media, which were later cited and referenced
in the Swedish news media.
This was probably partly due to one of
foreign reporting’s traditional problems.
The media from the area of coverage are
the outstanding primary sources. However,
the reporting surrounding Princess
Diana’s death might also be an expression
of a deeper problem: a trend whereby
media and journalists serve increasingly
as each other’s sources. The reasons for
this phenomenon are certainly primarily
financial. This is the cheapest way to gather
information. In the media world, the practice
of recycling the news is growing, and
the media’s picture of reality is increasingly
a self-constructed one.
Moreover, the question is whether the
British media, rather than reflecting public
opinion – which was the picture given
by the Swedish media – actually created
an opinion of, among other things, “a
nation in mourning”. The British media
abandoned their role as impartial observers
and became instead active players in
the wave of criticism – mediated by the
media themselves – directed at the royal
family. The media in Great Britain helped
considerably to shape the reality they
themselves reported on – a reality that
was the basis for the picture of developments
mediated in Swedish.
Another question is the extent to which
is was actually the British people who
demanded a transformation of the monarchy,
or whether it was the British media
that did so by claiming to represent
public wishes. Nothing resembling a public
opinion poll on this issue was reported.
The Swedish newspapers, TV and
radio news also painted a dramatic picture
of the atmosphere of revolt they claimed
was developing in London a few
169
days before the funeral. But this rebellious
atmosphere disappeared from the studied
media as quickly as it appeared. During
parts of the week under study, however,
the Swedish media created a picture of a
British kingdom in disorder.
During the week following Princess
Diana’s death, people gathered in
London’s centre to honour her memory,
and the lines wound hundreds of metres
in front of St. James Place, where books of
condolence were placed. But London is a
city of over seven million. Only an insignificant
proportion of its inhabitants actively
participated in mourning the Princess;
no reports were made on, for example,
traffic jams, impassable streets or
an overloading of public transportation.
According to some reports, the massive
coverage of the Princess’s death by the
British media instead provoked irritation
among parts of the public who demanded
regular broadcast schedules and newspaper
pages.
The most prominent Swedish media presented
a stylised picture of developments.
The nuances – the odd voices and elements
outside the stereotyped template
adhered to by the media – received little
or no attention. The actual developments
were certainly much more diverse and
difficult to take in. The British
government’s constitutional and popular
anchorage, the commercial and cultural
prerequisites and terms of news production,
the public’s need for models and
icons, as well as personal and private circumstances
that will never reach public
light are all factors that in various ways
led to the human tragedy that came to an
end in Paris on August 31, 1997. Just as
Princess Diana – as the public knew her –
was a media construction, so was the story
of her death and funeral. The saga of
Diana’s life and death was the media’s.