To be hurt and annoyed at being dropped by the BBC?

Yes, I think the OP needs to say something and at least be provided with an explanation. This is particularly the case if the OP had not done a media appearance before. A reasonable number of academics I know are happy enough to talk to a producer for 1/2 hour, but beyond that ask for a fee.

Topic areas, yes - I said this already in a previous post. It is not best practice to send questions and if a researcher or producer working under me did that, I would explain why not to next time - as I have done on occasion.

I have made an assumption about what has happened here based on the info I have from the OP’s posts, set against my many years of making specialist factual films.

It might be incorrect, but without seeing the emails or listening into their calls, I don’t know - anymore than you know they were definitely briefed properly and got over excited.

I also have said several times that she may have been dropped for any number of reasons not related to her performance - but as she doesn’t care about anything other than her own feelings of embarrassment, I wanted to reassure her that even if it was related to her performance, that isn’t her fault.

Producers produce - and I don’t think I’ve had many (any?) interviewees over the years that I couldn’t make work, given enough time. Now maybe they didn’t have the luxury of time, but again, that’s a reason external to the OP.

So how about we agree to disagree?

You can reassure the OP she doesn’t need to feel silly, without implying the producers did a poor job when you have no idea that’s the case.

It’s completely normal to send an expert contrib topic areas for specialist factual docs - from the programme makers POV the contrib need to be on top of their material, and from the contribs POV many wouldn’t agree to take part without.

The fact the OP was sent questions does not imply she wasn’t also told how the slot would work, and that she didn’t need to preprep answers. From the OP’s description she jumped in with great enthusiasm, so it’s possible she got caught up in that, ignored the brief and went OTT on the prep - it happens.

It’s also quite possible the OP got dropped for reasons other than an over rehearsed delivery, it could be for time or because storyline changed direction. (It won’t be because of what you look like OP.)

No one likes being dropped from a show, but it happens all the time. The OP should have been better communicated with, although the fault for that may with the production company rather than the team on location, who may not have been involved in the final edit. If the OP writes to complain, which she is more than entitled to do, she’ll get an apology or an explanation.

Well, I had this happen to me as an academic....provided absolutely loads of free research, etc, and was dropped to see my expertise included but not credited.. I was also filmed and included, but I wasn't paid anything for my time helping the producer with content, and it involved an entire morning of filming and hours of work. I didn't even get my rail ticket reimbursed. It happens all the time. People say you should be more than happy to share your knowledge. Sure, and I don't mind doing this for local radio and such, but there is also just taking the piss when it is a nationalised programme. It was actually brought up as a problem at an AHRC sponsored gathering concerning media exposure for academics held in 2021.
https://www.ukri.org/news/transforming-arts-and-humanities-research-into-television/

I hosted for a non-BBC show, and was paid a whopping £100. I think the show is still on air in other parts of the world. If you expect money, you need an agent to negotiate for you.

It is the same thing with cross over trade (scholarship for a lay audience) books...if you don't get the Society of Authors or your agent to look at your contract, you'll end up getting zilch or very little...£600 advance for writing a commercial book.

This! I have a niche interest that I've spent years researching, and decided to compile everything I've learnt into a document I have made available to others who share my interest. I've done this partly because I had a couple of requests but mainly because one of the sources I used is a defunct forum and pages are starting to disappear so information is being lost. When I have finished it I'm considering putting it up on Scribd.

That is literally my job - produce the person on screen to give good content.

Finding your posts interesting @Producethis

The benefit to her was in sharing her knowledge and research with a wider audience who no doubt would appreciate her hard work.

It’s ridiculous to imply she would only do it ‘to get on tv’. Maybe you only share your work because you have to to fulfil contractual obligations, but not everyone thinks that way about knowledge dissemination.

I know that. As I said, I’m a producer - a very experienced one who makes those decisions.

We don’t know that she wasn’t briefed properly, but she did say she was sent questions - that is not best practice, and coupled with the poor communication around her piece being dropped, I’m going to stand by my assumption that she likely wasn’t briefed properly.

At the very least, the person sending the questions should have included a line about not preparing too much.

The expectation shouldn’t be on the contrib to understand how it works - the prod team should give them all the necessary info.

If the OP spent ages writing and learning a script, I’m confident she wasn’t told not to over-prepare or rehearse - which is page 1 shit for researchers.

Edit: I don’t mean to suggest it’s the producer’s fault she got dropped - but if the decision to drop was made (even in part) because over-rehearsal lead to a poor interview, then the producer bares some responsibility. I’m trying to reassure the OP that she shouldn’t feel silly for making the effort she did.

Whattttt, that is so out of order! Can you tweet the producer the segment, plus your script, asking why they did that? That is outrageous,

I am so sorry you're having to leap to your own defence here, you are definitely not unreasonable!
I'm a master's student and know full well that they 'hire' academics to say their piece, rewrite the script and add historical accuracy all without paying them. 'Oh, academics are usually happy with just a mention!' So I wholeheartedly believe you.
Having said that, and agreeing with you, absolutely email the producer and discuss this. You've proven you know your worth and can stand up for yourself 😊

Do you have a copy of your initial video?
Are you able to speak to a solicitor and see if you have some sort of a case of historical information uncovered by you being used publicly, without mentioning you as the contributor?

I’m well aware of all that. I don’t know why you think I wouldn’t be. Yes, my funding often requires non-specialist dissemination, but it’s not, as I said, the primary means of disseminating my research. Also, as I said, it’s a mutually convenient relationship between tv/documentary producers and researchers, absolutely. Whether I get a haircut is irrelevant. My point is that the OP doesn’t sound as if she is an academic researcher, so there was no particular benefit to her in spending days preparing a script, choosing an outfit etc — she was doing it to be on tv, which is why she’s understandably so disappointed when it didn’t happen. I’m sympathising with her here, and saying that it was almost certainly nothing she did wrong that meant her segment wasn’t broadcast, and that if she’s anxious to get her research to a wider audience, she should explore other ways of doing it (giving a talk in her local library, a walking tour, local radio?).

No it isn’t.

The OP has said it wasn’t verbatim, it included information gleaned from her interview.

Apart from not potentially producing her properly, they haven’t done anything wrong in making the programme.

They have, IMO, done plenty wrong in how they communicated the editorial changes to her.

But plenty of people don’t like tricky conversations and will avoid them for an easy life - tv is just as full of arseholes as every other industry. Actually, probably more.

Yes of course they should have explained it to the OP, but it is untrue that is necessarily the producers’ ‘fault’ that she got dropped, and you are not helping the OP by telling her she wasn’t briefed properly - you have no idea of that. Contribs get dropped for all sorts of reasons, many beyond the control of the immediate production team.

depends on whether your remit is professional or public engagement.

If the latter, it is often expected that you share with a general audience and tv is an excellent way to do that.

I’m a specialist docs producer and work alongside scientists and historians all the time who either want to raise their own profile or are encouraged to by their grant finders or university. It’s a mutually beneficial relationship that requires professional treatment - and although not aligned with a university, the OP deserves the same consideration.

Also, just because you wouldn’t spend hours making yourself look good to increase your confidence, doesn’t mean someone who does is less than you.

@Ladyof2025 can you answer the question about how the woman was captioned on the screen?

The OP has said the information she covered was very specific to the location and had taken her years to dig out. It was not two people working from the same knowledge based, it was one person's knowledge that the BBC then used without giving her any credit. It is unprofessional of them.

WTF. Get a life

@WilmaTitsDrop

The fact the OP took it on herself to write a script completely unprompted, was probably why they decided against showing it.

These things are supposed to flow naturally
Well they ended up with the opposite of what you suggest. The new presenter didn't speak off the cuff. They studied what the OP said, learned it by rote and repeated it. .

exactly as @Producethis says

This is the bit of the story I doubt. It will be two people working from the v same knowledge base (the facts/research) so it sounds the same but it really isn't

No they can’t.

Standard release forms - which even the most inexperienced runner knows to get signed before you turn over - include a clause that waives all rights over the contribution. Likeness, content, everything.

If she had refused to sign it, they wouldn’t have filmed.

Well that's exactly what the second presenter did seeing they learned the script off what the OP wrote. That's the whole point of the thread

@WilmaTitsDrop

There is no script, otherwise they wouldn't bother interviewing randoms.
Clearly there was a script for the new presenter. The OP wrote it. That's the whole point of this thread

It's not just "not impossible" it's very highly likely.

It's almost certainty exactly what happened