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

Haven’t read the whole thread but I can’t believe some of the borderline sociopathic replies I’ve seen. Are some people really so unimaginative that they think everyone can simply show up and launch into natural-sounding speech without some sort of preparation/script?! I’m an expert in my field but I’m also autistic so need to prepare — pretty sure I don’t sound “wooden” because of it 🫠 It’s the gobshites who think everyone else loves the sound of their voice as much as they do who are the tedious ones to listen to IME.

OP, I can absolutely believe this happened as you describe, unfortunately. I’d be doing a FOI and getting in touch with the producer - they’ve really crossed a line and are on legally very shaky ground. Good on you for having the guts to go on camera and share your knowledge, and I’m sorry you were treated so poorly. Please don’t let one bad experience put you off doing anything similar in future!

Lol.

I think it's disgraceful behaviour. I think you should write a polite letter to the producer explaining how used and exploited you feel and upset at basically being used and lied to.

The bbc are inclusive as shit until it comes to middle age women - bunch of misogynistic fuckers

There is no script. The BBC didn't commission a script and OP didn't write one.

OP wrote down what she wanted to say because she wasn't confident enough to answer questions without rehearsing.

No, it is not 'copyright'. Nothing has been 'stolen'.

OP made a contribution - for free - and signed a release allowing the program makers to do whatever they wanted with it.

It's really unhelpful to give incorrect advice on a topic if you know nothing about it.

Hmm, but the OP didn't want to be stuttering over her words, which wouldn't have been great. They gave feedback that she was good, if there'd been a problem with it being too 'slick' then they could have asked her for a retake.
I watch a lot of historical stuff on TV, I can think of 2 presenters/historians who I find quite irritating because they do a lot of things like-

1. Staring into the distance as if considering a point before speaking. Or 2) Taking a deep intake of breath as if thinking of what to say next. When clearly they're reading from a rehearsed monologue.

It does sound like they have taken advantage of the OP's research and knowledge and then decided to drop her, for whatever reason.

She was never employed...

Or are we just saying random words now? Obviously none of us know what the motivation of the company was in making these changes, which the OP sees as her being replaced with a younger model. OP is clearly hurt and upset and it's definitely fair to say that communication should have been much better.

The production company/producer should have communicated to the OP that a rehearsed speech, however natural, is not the feel they want for this sort of piece. I have very recently been an expert talking head for this sort of thing, for the BBC (through a production company), they sent through a brief about the ground they wanted to cover and the general gist of the conversation but they explicitly said not to practice or rehearse because it was to be a natural conversation.

The production should also have communicated with the OP at the time that for whatever reason, her contribution wasn't what they were looking for, and they didn't. Yes OP would have been upset by being told the sound was all wonky and couldn't be used, or she didn't answer the question, or whatever, but that's better than just reshooting and not saying anything to her.

Also agree though that a release form will have allowed them to use her contribution in whichever way they see fit. These are standard.

Lots of people just want to pile in and have a pop at the BBC for reasons entirely unrelated to the OP's story.

I would go to the press!! That’s outrageous

Tell me you know nothing about media production…

Employment tribunal

That sucks OP.

A much smaller issue but I once had an idea for an article for Babyworld in its heyday (it doesn't exist anymore) about the reality of coming to terms with having a child with special needs. They liked my idea so I wrote them an article, incorporating their comments into it and they said it would be published forthwith.

It later appeared "re-written" (but mostly in my words) by someone else entirely and changed from the mum perspective. I was gutted. I was doing quite well with articles at the time and had recently had one published in the Nursing Times. Went off Babyworld after that and ditched it entirely for Mumsnet

I'd be tempted to submit an FOI requesting all information they had about this section of the programme and their research. Might be enlightening. Then I'd complain. https://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/requesting-information

Maybe it isn’t, it just sounded like a cliche story and the language of the OP’s first post sounded like something written by AI.

I don’t doubt BBC (or any other station) would drop something they already filmed, but replacing an older woman with a “slim and young” woman doing the exact same script sounds a step too far.

Show them your original manuscript and charge them 200 pounds a day for the whole time you researched, wrote, including commuting to the filming destination and talking

I am not all that righteous. Thus is Elon Musk, FGS. There is literally no one comparable.

Twitter is bigger but BlueSky has a more useful demographic. Most media people, artists, writers, academics, etc are on BlueSky, whether or not they are still on Twitter.

Ignore the posters being rude. There will always be rude people on AIBU, its a waste of your energy to focus on them.

Do contact the bbc complaints line, it sounds like they've treated you very unfairly, they should not be able to get away with this with no comeback.

Could you expand on your erudite contribution to the discussion?

Invoice them for your script. And don't be modest.

This is copyright. You need to kick off. They stole your material.

I work in TV and items get shortened/cut all the time so my initial reaction is don't take it persionally as it would have been unintentional and decisions get made higher up and editors have to cut things all the time in order to make durations fit.
Before you contact them, make sure you have all your facts laid out so you can calmly present your side of things - do you have a copy/transcript of what the other contributor said to directly compare to what you wrote?
I am sure you're not describing yourself in the best light and i bet you are vibrant, beautiful and interesting and you should be proud that you put your best foot forward.
Let us know what the outcome is.
x

Its, not it's.

OP, if you're still reading posts, I think the production team has been rude, ungrateful and unprofessional. You deserve an explanation, payment and an apology.
The BBC is still elitist and ageist and rarely deserves it's licence fee.

You don't really know why they did what they did

No I don't, which is why I said "What I expect has happened..."

I'm making an educated guess based on many years in the broadcasting industry and the many times I've appeared on BBC TV/radio as a pundit myself.

I agree it was a bit rude not to give her a heads-up, but it's hardly uncommon, it's not the end of the world and I'd say it was more likely done out of carelessness than anyone thinking she wasn't 'important' enough.

Also, would you like to be told something you take seriously is only to be presented as your little hobby that should be only presented in a cafe?

OP has stated numerous times that she has never done anything like this before and was terrified about the prospect of going on camera, for various reasons.

So yes, I think a good way to deal with that would be starting small, in an environment with much less pressure, so that next time, she's confident enough to answer a couple of questions on her specialist subject without needing to write and rehearse a script.