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

I think it probably doesn't matter much to the audience, but it matters to the person who did the work I just think people should get credit for their contributions.

And what if they do? I'm not being argumentative, I'm being serious - why would a viewer care? Unless someone is recalling a personal experience, I've never stopped to wonder if they were the ones to uncover the information.

I don’t disagree that she should have been made properly aware of the change, but it isn’t clear that there was any ‘deal’ whereby the sharing of the research was contingent on OP appearing on camera.

If it was, that would have been problematic in several ways.

I do think the OP deserves an explanation and potentially an apology - but the calls for naming the production and potentially outing the programme-makers are a step too far.

@beenonthebox if the OP was on tv presenting her own research then viewers would assume it's either hers or is information in the public domain. If someone else presents it, they will make that assumption about the new presenter. As it is, they've seemingly used OPs efforts to make a programme that will generate money for the organisation, but not paid or credited a person who contributed their expertise.

I'm not saying she didn't understand it, but most people who don't work in a particular industry, would trust the people who do and would expect their work to be used as initially agreed. And if that changes, would expect to be notified and compensated.

If a person agrees to contribute their research for free, in the expectation they will be presenting their own work, and then the terms change, it's not right imo for the production team to not credit or pay the OP.

Adults with full capacity can make their own decisions. It’s infantilising the OP - who is clearly intelligent and accomplished - to suggest she was unable to understand the contents of the release form.

People who don't work in TV will likely sign release forms as requested, but still expect that their contribution will be used in the way initially presented to them and the basis on which they agreed to be part of the programme.

I'm not seeing how it isn't immoral to use someone's research (not information that was easily available on the public domain) and not give them credit or payment for their time.

I disagree.

It’s rude not to give her a proper explanation (if that is what has happened) but there is nothing immoral about not using a contribution that, for whatever reason, wasn’t suitable for inclusion.

The release forms are very clear on the right to use the contribution in whatever way - or no way at all - the programme makers see fit.

If they had persuaded her to give them her research on the basis of being on tv, that would have been immoral - firstly for making a deal like that, and then for reneging on it.

As that didn’t happen, there is no question of immorality here.

How would anyone watching have known it was her work?

It is immoral to use the work OP has done and not give her credit or payment, having previously indicated that she would be on camera presenting her own research.

There is no indication she was lied to. They may have changed their mind - which they are allowed to do. It does, from the limited info we have, appear that they weren’t clear that the info would still be included, just not with her saying it.

We don’t film stuff we have zero intention of using - it’s too expensive and time is too tight. If they wanted her info and not her contribution on screen, they would have done a research call / meeting instead - likely days or weeks in advance to enable time for a script to be written. Filming a presenter redoing the piece and including the fresh info the OP had revealed in her interview will have been a last minute and pressured decision - some poor producer will have had to pull a script out of their arse, on location. Unless the OP had already given the info to the researcher in their earlier communications, in which case they again had no reason to film her at all if they had no intention of using it.

It sounds to me (again, form the very limited info here) like poor practice not to have been clear they were including the piece in a different way, but it’s not illegal or immoral or anything that would excuse making this into a nasty campaign against the producers.

...but she may not want to out herself to anyone who doesn't.

Can't say I blame her.

Even if OP signed away her rights to the material, she did it on the basis of the information provided by the production team. If they'd been upfront and said that they wanted a professional presenter to be on camera, she might well have still agreed or negotiated payment for her efforts, but that would have been agreed from a position where there was truthfulness from the programme makers. It's about being treated respectfully and honestly and not lied to or used.

Yes it is.

They haven’t done anything illegal - at worst (and without minimising the effect it’s had on OP), it’s poor communication in explaining why the content has been included in a different way.

People make mistakes but they should be dealt with in a respectful, professional way, not a misguided witch hunt by loads of randoms online.

You have nothing to do with this, beyond supporting the OP on an anonymous forum, and pressuring her to reveal anything more is unfair to the people actually involved.

It's not unfair to the people working on the show if they've done something wrong.

It would also be unfair to the people who worked on the show. We have no way to tell what has actually gone down here. Turning it into a witch hunt isn’t fair on anyone.

Hopefully the OP will get some answers and an apology if required, and can move on from the disappointment.

"Madge" has already outed herself to anyone who knows her.

There are loads of people on here who love an advance search. OP posts her script, someone recognises her and thinks oooh, that's Madge, does an advance search and then looks at her opinions on all sorts of different things. OP is entirely reasonable to want to preserve her anonymity and we all need to respect that.

No it wouldn't.

Anyone who knew her was already primed to watch the TV show. She told all her friends she was going to be on it. And the details she's given on this thread would be enough for anyone from the TV company to recognise her already.

As the script doesn't mention her and the show doesn't mention her, there is nothing more outing than has already been disclosed.

Agree, this is coming across as a bit bullying.

The OP has had some good advice from people who work in the industry here.

Why can't we leave it there?

I totally understand why she wouldn't want to post her script as it would be very outing to anyone who knew her.

Unfair to pressure her to do this.

She did say that, and then later said "Maybe not every single word was the same" so it's actually impossible to know the truth unless she posts her script and a link to the show.

Any reason you couldn't do that @Ladyof2025 ?

And on the back of that, the point I made several times - which the OP has never addressed - is that if her piece to camera was about the greater good of raising the profile of her cause, is it not something at least that the information she collated has at least been used?

Even if the OP had been on TV as filmed, how on earth would a lay-person know that she was the one who'd uncovered that information? I wouldn't. By going on the telly, she wasn't ever going to get the credit she deserves for it, no matter what.

If I knew why the OP did this piece to camera in the first place, it would make it much easier to understand her unhappiness.

This. Part of my history research degree involved me uncovering info from deep in the National Archives and from local archives around the country. The entire point of my research was to challenge the historical orthodoxy around the subject, which I feel is wrong. History is a big old period covering everything ever. There’s no arrogance in being able to single out your research, especially with the conclusions that research led to. And she did say in the original post that it was her actual script that had been used.

I’d be furious. That’s not on at all.