Martin Bashir Releases Statement Following Report on Princess Diana's Landmark Panorama Interview
Princess Diana’s Panorama interview with Martin Bashir is still talked about today as a landmark moment in her life and in royal history. And now, the results of an independent inquiry have produced a scathing assessment of how the interview was obtained and the BBC’s subsequent actions.
The BBC issued an apology following the publication of a 127-page report by Lord Dyson which concluded that Diana’s brother Earl Spencer was “deceived and induced” by Bashir to arrange a meeting with the Princess. “By gaining access to Princess Diana in this way, Mr Bashir was able to persuade her to agree to give the interview,” Dyson writes. The report detailed how Bashir used fake bank statements which showed payments into the accounts of royal staff, describing this as a “serious breach” of the BBC’s guidelines.
The BBC’s director-general Tim Davie said today, “It is clear that the process for securing the interview fell far short of what audiences have a right to expect. We are very sorry for this. Lord Dyson has identified clear failings.” The BBC also said that any awards given for the interview would not be retained.
The investigation was commissioned following renewed publicity last year around the 25th anniversary of the landmark interview, in which Diana most famously said “there were three of us in this marriage.” Earl Spencer called for the inquiry after becoming aware of information that was new to him about how the BBC had behaved behind the scenes. That led him to go to the press and describe an internal 1996 investigation as a “whitewash.”
Lord Dyson’s report found that the initial investigation was “woefully ineffective,” describing the failure to interview Earl Spencer as a “big mistake” and said that they did not scrutinize Bashir’s account enough. “Without justification, the BBC fell short of the high standards of integrity and transparency,” Lord Dyson wrote.
Another task of the investigation was to determine to what extent Bashir’s actions influenced Diana’s decision to give the interview. On this point, Dyson makes it clear that it was the faked documents that let to the introduction and subsequent interview. But he also writes in the report, “Whatever reservations she may have had about it later, Princess Diana was pleased with the interview at the time. By early to midAugust 1995 at the latest, she was keen on the idea of a television interview. She would probably have agreed to be interviewed by any experienced and reputable reporter in whom she had confidence even without the intervention of Mr Bashir.”
The report includes a handwritten letter from Princess Diana on Kensington Palace stationery dated December 22, 1995. It said that she had “no regrets” concerning the matter and that Bashir did not give her any documents or information that she was not previously aware of. “If she assured them that she had not been shown any documents and had not been influenced by any information of which she was not already aware, at first sight that should have been enough to allay their concerns,” Lord Dyson wrote about the way the initial investigation was conducted. But, he questioned, “should they have approached Earl Spencer who might have told them some or all of the things that he has told the Investigation? I do not find this an easy question to answer. I have concluded that it would not be reasonable to criticise them for failing to take that further step. The indirect and real target of Mr Bashir’s deceptions was Princess Diana.”
Following Lord Dyson's report, Martin Bashir released a statement apologizing for mocking up the documents, reported in The Evening Star. He wrote in full:
"This is the second time that I have willingly fully co-operated with an investigation into events more than 25 years ago.
I apologised then, and I do so again now, over the fact that I asked for bank statements to be mocked up. It was a stupid thing to do and was an action I deeply regret.
But I absolutely stand by the evidence I gave a quarter of a century ago, and again more recently.
I also reiterate that the bank statements had no bearing whatsoever on the personal choice by Princess Diana to take part in the interview.
Evidence handed to the inquiry in her own handwriting (and published alongside the report today) unequivocally confirms this, and other compelling evidence presented to Lord Dyson reinforces it.
In fact, despite his other findings, Lord Dyson himself in any event accepts that the princess would probably have agreed to be interviewed without what he describes as my 'intervention'.
It is saddening that this single issue has been allowed to overshadow the princess' brave decision to tell her story, to courageously talk through the difficulties she faced, and, to help address the silence and stigma that surrounded mental health issues all those years ago.
She led the way in addressing so many of these issues and that's why I will always remain immensely proud of that interview."
Princes William and Harry were following the inquiry, which William described as “a step in the right direction.”
“It should help establish the truth behind the actions that led to the Panorama interview and subsequent decisions taken by those in the BBC at the time,” he said.
You Might Also Like
