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?

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

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.

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

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

Employment tribunal

Tell me you know nothing about media production…

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Lol.

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!

Tbh I agree and understand, but the BBC are the most corrupt evil thing ever, they are owned by USA and wef seriously, many are no longer paying their TV licences. Thankfully Trump has dropped them also.

You were robbed OP, and it's extremely unfair. Perhaps you can take some consolation from stretching an explanation of their cheeky-fuckery to "they flattered me by using my unique research". But if that is no consolation, I totally get it.

Sounds like you gave yourself a really nice makeover and I hope other people in your life have made some appreciative comments and you get to enjoy that at least.

Don't let this rotten experience get you down. And don't give up on your passion, it sounds really important to you!

It's a breach of academic integrity-attributing people's ideas /research to the correct person.

If our poster wrote an article now on this topic someone could pipe up -you copied off that lass on country file. You'd have to prove you didn't.

@Ladyof2025
nobody needs any more proof that they are a disgusting and corrupt ‘corporation’ , leeching billions from the public to fund their jollies and enourmous pension funds .
cancel your licence now
I am sorry this happened to you but really it is par for the course with them

I’d be annoyed too. Just remember a small consolation which is to be copied is the greatest form of flattery (if that’s the quote).

Intellectual property theft is rife. I am amazed at the frequency I hear of this type of thing now.

The most corrupted evil thing ever? More evil than Hitler? More evil than Vladimir Putin (actually you probably love him) ? More evil than Stalin? Gosh. Sounds like the OP had a narrow escape.

I am really sorry OP that you have been treated so badly by the BBC and some other Mumsnetters.

I hope you find the courage to complain and get answers. It appears this is something the BBC does - it's underhand and unfair. You come across as intelligent and witty.

I wish you well.