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

[Ladyof2025]

BBC contacted me asking me to speak on camera about an aspect of local history I happen to know a bit about. I agreed and spent the next few days brushing up on the facts and then writing and rewriting a script and reading it out loud again and again until I knew it by heart and could speak confidently to camera as though I'd never said it before.

I do not have a pretty face, and am in my 60s and rather podgy, but I went to the trouble of going through my wardrobe for the perfect outfit that flattered my podginess, and had my hair cut specially and put on some make up, so I could be the best possible version of me that I could.

The production team visited, took me to the site and filmed me speaking. I did it smoothly and confidently and was glad that I had put in all the rehearsal so I came across as knowledgeable, professional and confident of my material. They said my performance was perfect, thanked me profusely and left.

After about a week they rang me to say that due to time and space issues the section of the programme that featured my input had been dropped. I felt absolutely gutted, not because I want to see myself on TV but because I had used up a lot of my valuable free time for several days preparing and rehearsing for it (for no fee I should add).

A few months later the programme I was dropped from came on TV and to my utter astonishment an attractive, slim young lady appeared, at the same site I was filmed at, and she spoke the exact words I had written and rehearsed! I nearly fell off my chair - the absolute bloody cheek of dropping ME but stealing the script that I had written. Thinking about it, I realised that they wanted my expert input, but not my saggy face or ample figure.

AIBU to be hurt and angry?

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 I haven't made that mistake again of using unpublished work in a pre-recorded interview.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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

They shouldn’t have copied your script

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

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.

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

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.

Because I am passionate about the subject I was speaking about and only too happy to share that with the world.

Because I am proud and flattered to have been considered THE expert in my town on this particular building.

Because it never was about money to me.

Because I don't need the money.

Yes I have all the emails.

They did not have a printout of my script, no. But I spoke it to camera, a "talking head" and they could have transcribed it.

I would be formalising a complaint about the unauthorised use of your script, which is your intellectual property - send them screen shots of the document metadata showing when you wrote it and tell them how many months BEFORE their shoot it was, and ask them how they intend to recompense you...

OP, I used to work in TV. I think it is most likely that you were over-rehearsed and that did not come across well when the rushes were viewed. Spontaneity is better for TV. Nothing to do with your appearance.

I work in a niche sector, and there are questions that if I was asked I would probably give a near-identical answer to someone else working in a similar role in the same sector. Could that have been the reason the other person appeared to say the same as you?

Obviously I understand that you are feeling frustrated but it's no reflection on you.

No.

I don’t think that’s generally considered to be true at all - Moira Stuart comes to mind.

Who does that? Someone who cares about her hobby subject, which she has put a huge amount of time and effort into over the years, and at long last has been gifted with the chance to tell the world why this subject matters!

Who does that? A shy person with low self esteem, who has had all her confidence battered out of her in life, who was nervous, anxious, self-conscious, aware that she isn't a pretty sight, and embarrassed about her fat body, having seen endless numbers of similar shaped people be humiliated on TV over nearly seven decades.

Who does that? An ordinary working-class woman who has never been on TV or radio, given a public speech or been in the public eye, one who was shaking inside at the mere thought of being on camera.

Who does that? Someone who did not want to let the programme-makers down by looking unkempt, fluffing her lines, punctuating every sentence with "er" and "um", getting stage fright, freezing like a rabbit in the headlights, making an utter twat of herself in front of confident TV people and ending up being dropped from the programme, and thus letting herself down and looking a fool to every friend she told that she was going to be on TV.

That's who.

Yes this really..don't think you can blame the bbc for your vanity if they didn't say you had to do those things to appear.. seems like it is your ego that is bruised now as it was cut. I'm surprised if they truly nicked your 'script' and had a younger presenter read it, if so this would be cause for a complaint. They should give you an explanation, but not sure what else you want as you freely gave the information and presumably signed a model release? I have seen and heard some who memorize a script and it's bloody awful because it sounds exactly like it is being read anyway, even though it isn't. The best interviewees are the natural ones, but that's not easy if you have anxiety/nerves. I've seen people queue up to give the BBC free stuff like wonderful photos for the weather app not realising that really they could have been paid decent money for them, instead of giving them away for free! BBC amongst others has never really respected Photojournalism, why would they when they can get things for free from gullible people who just want to see their name on the telly/web?! They've been doing it for years, the much contested license fee doesn't cover much these days so they use their slim budgets as an excuse to rip off other people who are only too happy for give away their expertise/skills for free...

I've been too scared to contact them because I worry that they will come back to me saying that it was something that I did, to "deserve" it and being humiliated about that.