In those days they would manipulate the audience by re-editing the B-Rolls particularly when wanting to capture the reactions of the journalist.

Watch carefully and you will see that they are using her blunt and slightly ironic expression as a subtext for audiences to stop and pause at the Shah's responses by looking at her facial expression rather than his answers.

Her reactions were often shot subsequently to the interview itself then edited as if this was done in continuity.

Jon Snow of the then BBC did the same.

Hence eachtime the Shah would give these interviews the editing was aimed at putting the Journalist in a more favorable position than the Shah. All this was done albeit the Shah noticing how they were already trying to trap him for editing purposes. 

That is why he got such a bad press in the west with these subtly manipulated interviews. 

Go to 4 min 32 and watch her reaction blinking bluntly with wide open eyes and you will understand my point 

;) 

Additionally the Shah's long tirade in which he appears as if he was threatening the West of War must have been done in response to a provocative question by the journalist which does not appear in the footage.

So the context in which he would give his response it totally blurred by the overall edit as if he was the one threatening the west. 

knowing what we know today  with the role of the so called free press which has never really been free and essentially serving interests of cetrain entities, he should have never participated in these kind of interviews. In fact I say he should have stayed as low profile as possible!

I did like his answers comparing price increase of wheat verses oil and also his answer about foregin invasion of oil producing countries  which ironically came through few decades later in Iraq and Libya and now some bone heads want to bring that to Iran.

Any how thanks for the posting.