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

Oh and re pickups v same day - yes, often we will record two or more talking heads in on location or on one subject but we would never film them in exactly the same place - it would make it uncutable.

If the second expert was filmed in exactly the same spot, the intention was always to only use one contribution.

With the budgets and schedules we have to work with now, there is no way anyone is adding a couple of hours onto an already too long filming day to give themselves a choice.

At the very least, they would film the same material in two slightly different locations so they can cut between. It’s an effective way to make long stories or dense content feel more pacy.

Is it really any different preparing for an interview yourself or a researcher giving you information during it? If you’re not comfortable saying it because you doubt the quality of the research, fine, but you seem to be implying it’s somehow underhand. I disagree and have often had discussion with contributors in this vein.

Cheeky sods. I'd ask for compensation for my time and I would complain.

Quite a few assumptions here I wouldn’t agree with - as someone who has been making documentaries for a very long time.

Presenters have different roles. Some are on a journey of discovery, so interview experts to learn about a subject alongside the audience. Others are already experts in a given field and offer their expertise alongside other experts. In your experience, I suspect it was the latter, and of course they will always be portrayed as the ‘most knowledgeable’ so putting your words in their mouth is understandable - if morally questionable. But really, if you don’t want your work delivered by someone else, don’t say it in a situation where you know you have waived all rights to your contribution. The release forms are very clear and haven’t changed in years.

Over-rehearsed contributors are one of the hardest things to make work - they sound stilted, the answers are generally too long, and writing for a script is very different to writing down. Not many people can do it well, and it shows in the delivery.

Again, I don’t say this to make the OP feel bad - she should have been properly prepared by the producer and coached on the day, and if she wasn’t told not to write anything or was given the questions in advance, that’s poor.

You also seem to suggest that productions don’t research things - we do, and when it’s a specialist subject we often employ people with degrees in the area. They won’t have the depth of knowledge someone like yourself would have, but they will be bright and do their homework ahead of time. On-screen experts are needed to give the piece authority because Sarah Jones, TV researcher doesn’t cut it like Jane Smith, historian.

Of course productions don’t do original research - we are in the field of communication, not research. But most research jobs these days have a remit within them for communication - so the relationship between researcher and producer is symbiotic.

As for swapping a contribution for publicity - that is expressly forbidden. You cannot waive payment in the expectation of airtime - and if the production company offers it, they are breaking the rules. You have to sign all sorts of documents on BBC productions (and some other channels) to agree that you haven’t traded airtime for free stuff (which includes time).

I don’t doubt your experience as there are a lot of very poorly managed productions, that don’t do things correctly, but I wanted to add more context and outline the correct procedures.

And by pure coincidence, she used exactly the same words op wrote?

They shouldn’t have copied your script

Political activivists? The organisation that brings us the Proms, Call the Midwife, the Sunday service,Antiques Roadshow, Countryfile, Strictly? Seriously? Unless maybe you're concerned about the amount of time they allocate to blatantly right-wing types like Laura Kuenssberg and Nigel Farage?

Are you sure she said exactly your words and not something very similar? There's a limited amount you can say on a quick soundbite about a piece of local history. I find it much more likely that she said something very similar to you rather than your script verbatim which sounds like it would take unnecessary time for someone to have to learn and when they want these segments to appear natural and unscripted.

If you have your script and can prove they replicated it just with another person on screen then I absolutely would take it further because that's shocking.

I'd follow this up to the ends of the earth if this had happened to me. It's an outrage.

I question whether that is really the case. She must have said something similar if she was being asked the same question, and I do wonder whether OP assumed it was exactly the same when it wasn't.

But she didn't, she rehearsed and said exactly what the OP had written out and rehearsed as far as I understand it

A standard contributor release form includes a clause that says the production company can do whatever they want with the contribution. Use it, not use it, edit it, amend it etc etc.

OP will have been asked to sign this before they filmed here, and if she didn’t, they shouldn’t have gone ahead with the filming as her contribution could not have been included.

There is no legal claim here.

You obviously think OP is a troll so why haven't you reported the thread?

They recorded what OP said, didn't use that footage but obviously made a script from OP's recording and gave it to a younger and more photogenic woman to learn.

poor practice but is quite common
Thanks, @drhf , that's very enlightening. All the people on here who claim the OP's story never happened should reflect on this.

I've worked in tv documentaries (as a youngster) and now appear as a talking head occasionally.

I find this believable. One documentary I did early in my research career used part of my contribution, but also recorded the presenter saying some of my words. There was nothing wrong with my bit, but they wanted more of the presenter talking as the programme was structured around her. I was really annoyed as it was research I hadn't published yet. I haven't made that mistake again of using unpublished work in a pre-recorded interview.

I agree with people saying it wasn't appearance which made them drop OP, but PP are far too judgemental about OP writing out her answer in advance. Over-rehearsed contributors get used all the time, and some degree of planning is needed with dense factual content. OP could have been dropped because of a technical problem or because they decided it would flow better or be quicker for the other contributor to say OP's bit too.

It won't have been pickups, it will have been later the same day - interviewing the second contributor in the same location. They will have got the second contributor to cover whatever they got her in for (whether or not they used that in the end) and then added on the same question they asked you. Either she naturally gave a very similar answer (OP if you want to complain you should consider whether that is possible) or she will have said "I don't know the answer" and they will have prompted her using the words of OP's answer they recorded earlier that day.

I've had that too - I've been asked a question outside my expertise and told to give an answer fed to me by the producers. I always refuse, but some people don't. The young contributor very likely had no idea the words were from you OP (but you should assume anything told to you by a documentary team - including an expert presenter - is another researcher’s words as very few projects have time to do original research). The production team probably won't even remember prompting her.

I think this is really poor practice but it is quite common, and common enough that I’m not sure why several posters are adamant that it never happens. OP could bill the production for research, but OP will need evidence that the words were hers (and not the other contributor’s or taken from a book), and to state that she gave her time in exchange for publicity, and since she did not receive the publicity she expects to be paid for the research that the production used.

That's disgusting, op. I'm so sorry.

If they used her exact words it is. Her script is her intellectual property.

Incredible! You need to shine a light on this. Shocking!

I know my example above isn’t same as yours as person concerned didn’t write script for them but same principle

No.YANBU

I admit I haven’t read your full OP yet just the outline but I was listening to a podcast last night of someone who’d been dropped by BBC some decades ago after appearing in a series and suffering ill health. The BBC seemed much more concerned about covering their own backs than others’ welfare

Speak to a lawyer but is your script not your intellectual property. They owe you for your script writing services and time.

It's local history. Anyone can research it and come up with largely the same information. As others have said, it's not their fault that you spent an inordinate amount of time prepping.

Some people are good public speakers, and some are not. If they didn't use you, then the most reasonable explanation is you fell into the latter category, and they decided to use someone who was.

What does that mean?

stop looking up to them!! disgustingly biased, politically motivated outfit still 'piggybacking' on the reputation of decades of neutral reportage. stop paying the license of these vile political activists.