I think most, if not all, celebrities are concerned for their public image and to some extent carefully curate the version of themselves that they show to the public to maximize their likability and help to ensure that they and their films continue to be popular. I don't know if Eastwood does that more than most, but I think being called a cunning manipulator of the media is more a value judgment than a descriptive statement. I think at times the very same behavior can be interpreted positively or negatively. It's not the behavior itself. It's the interpretation of that behavior that can be very easily manipulated depending on what the writer or speaker hopes to convey, and whether the person doing the characterization likes the actor or director, or doesn't.
"Eastwood is a master manipulator of the media. He has them wrapped around his little finger. It's so fake and insincere. He refuses to talk about his scandalous private life! We don't even know how many children he has. He has the media right where he wants them!"
"Eastwood is really good at establishing rapport with the media. When conducting an interview, he casts aside the trappings of stardom by striving to put the interviewer at ease. He doesn't say as much about his personal life as others might, but like many of us, he values his privacy. This helps to maintain an air of mystery around him that keeps people coming back for more. He admirably doesn't feel the need to be the center of attention all the time, even though he's such a huge star! It's so refreshing!"
This is an example of how a neutral behavior can be spun to be wildly positive, or disturbingly negative, depending on how it's written. Celebrities are not the only ones who do this. Depending on what they aim to convey and the feelings they'd like to elicit, the media figures themselves are quite fond of using these techniques in their stories as well!
